Hi Kevin, thank you for your feedback and actions!
Ad "please create a CSR request and add link to it in JDK-8238080": preliminarily researching [CSR FAQ] (https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/csr/CSR+FAQs) the question "Q: How do I create a CSR ?" gets answered with: > "A: _Do not directly create a CSR from the Create Menu._ JIRA will let you do > this right up until _the moment you try to save it and find your typing was in vain._ Instead you should go to the target bug, select "More", and from the drop down menu select "Create CSR". This is required to properly associate the CSR with the main bug, just as is done for backports.". Looking at [JDK-8238080] (https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238080) there is no possibility for me to follow the above advice as I have no "More" button/link to select! The reason probably being that I cannot log on. Once I have the CSR text formulated (may take a little while) what should I do with it? ---rony On 03.04.2020 01:21, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Hi Rony, > > I see that you updated the PR and sent it for review. > > Before we formally review it in the PR, let's finish the discussion as to > whether this is a useful > feature, and if so, what form this feature should take. > > From my point of view, this does seem like a useful feature. Would other > users of FXML benefit > from it? > > I'm not certain whether we want it to be implicit, compiling the script if > the script engine in > question implements Compilable, or via a new keyword or tag. What are the > pros / cons? > > What do others think? > > In either case, we would need to make sure that this doesn't present any > security concerns in the > presence of a security manager. As long as a user-provided class is on the > stack, it will be fine, > but we would need to ensure that. > > -- Kevin > > > On 4/2/2020 10:41 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: >> 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
