I guess my view is that since mozilla_compat.js is intended to ease transition, the JavaAdapter cover, for example, should also provide the less strict form; this wouldn't harm the preferred Java.extend target for migration, which could continue to use the stricter form.
Similarly, readFile and readUrl wouldn't be hard to implement; I implemented each of them (poorly, but sufficiently) in perhaps 5-7 lines of code. Maybe there are sound reasons to exclude these (particularly if there are technical reasons I don't understand that would make the JavaAdapter defaults difficult), but my view would be, why not provide the smoothest possible glide path when providing a compatibility layer that is explicitly for that purpose? -- David P. Caldwell http://www.davidpcaldwell.com/ On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:58 PM, A. Sundararajan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > mozilla_compat.js provides only few things for transition -- not every Rhino > shell extension is supported by that. Only a subset of "non-shell" rhino > extensions are supported. JavaAdapter in mozilla_compat.js is a cover over > nashorn's own Java.extend. Java.extend, Java.type - are stricter in that > errors/exceptions are preferred compared to silently returning > false/providing empty method etc. > > Thanks > -Sundar > > > On Monday 12 May 2014 09:57 PM, David P. Caldwell wrote: >> >> I don't know how much compatibility is the goal, and I may be doing >> something wrong, but it looks like (running JDK 1.8.0_05) there are >> three incompatibilities between the Rhino shell and the >> mozilla_compat.js implementation provided with Nashorn. >> >> There may be reasons for these incompatibilities. But just in case >> there are not, >> >> 1. readFile appears to be absent, >> 2. readUrl appears to be absent, >> 3. The JavaAdapter implementation no longer appears to silently >> provide delegate methods that return null; instead the default >> implementation throws UnsupportedOperationException. >> >> Obviously I know how to work around these differences, but they cause >> some software to need modification to run under Nashorn even with the >> compatibility layer. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -- David P. Caldwell >> http://www.davidpcaldwell.com/ > >
