Regarding the CSR, that's usually done after the enhancement is agreed
upon in principle, and the review is far enough along that you are ready
to write up the spec changes, new API, and/or new interfaces.
Since you don't have direct JBS access you will need a sponsor to do
that part for you, in which case, creating a comment in the PR with the
contents of the CSR is the way to go (once we get to that point). Unless
there ends up being new public API, this will be mainly the spec changes
in FXMLLoader and the "Introduction to FXML" guide.
-- Kevin
On 4/3/2020 9:57 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
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
