After merging master, applying some fixes and changing the title to reflect the change from WIP to a pull request I would kindly request a review of this pull request!
Here the URL: <https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/129>, title changed to: "8238080: FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilable compile scripts". ---rony On 28.02.2020 19:22, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > Here is a WIP [1] implementation of [2]. The WIP is based on [3], which is > currently in review, and > has an appropriate test unit going with it as well, please review. > > There should be no compatibility issue with this implementation. > > Discussion: another solution could be to not compile by default. Rather > compile, if some new > information is present with the FXML file which cannot possibly be present in > existing FXML files. > In this scenario one possible and probably simple solution would be to only > compile scripts if the > language process instruction (e.g. <?language rexx?>) contains an appropriate > attribute with a value > indicating that compilation should be carried out (e.g.: compile="true"). > This way only FXML with > PIs having this attribute set to true would be affected. If desired I could > try to come up with a > respective solution as well. > > ---rony > > [1] "Implementation and test unit": <https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/129> > > [2] "JDK-8238080 : FXMLLoader: if script engines implement > javax.script.Compilable compile scripts": > <https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=JDK-8238080> > > [3] "8234959: FXMLLoader does not populate ENGINE_SCOPE Bindings with > FILENAME and ARGV": > <https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/122/commits> > > > On 24.01.2020 16:26, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > >> Thank you for filing this enhancement request. As an enhancement it should >> be discussed on this >> list before proceeding with a pull request (although a "WIP" or Draft PR can >> be used to illustrate >> the concept). >> >> For my part, this seems like a reasonable enhancement, as long as there are >> no compatibility >> issues, but it would be good to hear from application developers who heavily >> use FXML. >> >> -- Kevin >> >> >> On 1/24/2020 7:21 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: >>> Just filed a RFE with the following information: >>> >>> * Component: >>> o JavaFX >>> >>> * Subcomponent: >>> o fxml: JavaFX FXML >>> >>> * Synopsis: >>> o "FXMLLoader: if script engines implement javax.script.Compilabel >>> compile scripts" >>> >>> * Descriptions: >>> o "FXMLLoader is able to execute scripts in Java script languages >>> (javax.script.ScriptEngine >>> implementations) if such a Java script language gets defined as >>> the controller language in >>> the FXML file. >>> >>> If a script engine implements the javax.script.Compilable >>> interface, then such scripts >>> could >>> be compiled and the resulting javax.script.CompiledScript could be >>> executed instead using >>> its eval() methods. >>> >>> Evaluating the CompiledScript objects may help speed up the >>> execution of script >>> invocations, >>> especially for scripts defined for event attributes in FXML >>> elements (e.g. like >>> onMouseMove) >>> which may be repetitevly invoked and evaluated." >>> >>> * System /OS/Java Runtime Information: >>> o "All systems." >>> >>> Received the internal review ID: "9063426" >>> >>> ---rony
