Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Gang,
> As I am so much into it, I am looking at BeanShell support as well.
>
> Now, BeanShell can basically offer two different formats of doing this.
>
> 1) Strict Java. Define a class implementation, implementing the MixinType,
> which we instantiate and executes the actual method being invoked.
>
> Ex;
> public class AbcMixin
> implements Abc
> {
> public String doSomething()
> {
> return "Abc";
> }
> }
>
>
> 2) "Closure"-style. More like JavaScript, where a named closure is defined
> which I suggest we call straight up.
>
> Ex;
> doSomething()
> {
> return "Abc";
> }
>
>
> Should we support both of these? If not, which one?
> And shall the first case have a different extension, so that we can map such
> extension against the IDE's Java language support? Does it have to be .java
> in any IDE?
I would prefer 1). As for name, what is the standard one for BeanShell?
Is there one?
/Rickard
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
