There is a new WIP at <https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/192>:
This WIP adds the ability for a fallback in case compilation of scripts
fails, in which case a
warning gets issued about this fact and evaluation of the script will be
done without
compilation. Because of the fallback scripts get compiled with this version
by default. It
extends PR 187 #187.
To further ease spotting scripts that cause a ScriptException a message in
the form of
"filename: caused ScriptException" gets added to the exception handling in
either of the three
locations: an error message, a stack trace or a wrap-up into a
RuntimeException (having three
different kinds of reporting ScriptExceptions may be questioned, however
none of these tear down
the FXML GUI).
This WIP comes with proper test units as well. As per Kevin's suggestion a
warning gets logged
whenever a script cannot be compiled and the fallback gets used.
It is suggested to use this WIP as it includes the compilation by default with
a safe fallback to
evaluate the uncompiled script, if compilation (unexpectedly) fails.
Again, any feedback, discussion welcome!
---rony
P.S.: In the log history there is a commit message "Make message more
pregnant.", it should have
read "Make messages more terse." instead|.||
|
On 17.04.2020 19:37, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
> There is a new WIP at <https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/187> which adds a
> compile PI (process
> instruction) for turning on and off script compilation if the script engine
> implements the
> Compilable interface.
>
> By default compilation is off (no compilation), such that one needs to add a
> compile PI
> ("<?compile?>") at the top to activate this feature. Supplying "true"
> (default) or "false" as the PI
> data turns this feature on and off.
>
> The WIP comes with adapted test units that test "compile on" for an entire
> fxml file, "compile off",
> alternating using "compile on and off", and alternating using "compile off
> and on". This will test
> all variants of applying the compile PI for all categories of scripts.
>
> Any feedback appreciated!
>
> ---rony
>
> P.S.: FXML files that contain unknown PIs do not cause a runtime error by
> FXMLLoader, they just get
> ignored. Therefore one could apply the compile PI to FXML files that are used
> in older JavaFX runtimes.
>
> P.P.S.: In the next days I will also add Kevin's idea in a separate version
> that will have a
> fallback solution in case a compilation is (unexpectedly) not successful,
> reverting to
> (interpretative) evaluation/execution of the script. In that version it is
> planned to have
> compilation on by default as in the case of a compilation failure there will
> be a safe backup solution.
>
>
> On 14.04.2020 19:52, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> Yes, I agree that enough time has gone by. Go ahead with your proposal. I
>> would wait a bit to
>> create the CSR until the review is far enough along to know which direction
>> we intend to go.
>>
>> Unless there is a real concern about possible regressions if scripts are
>> compiled by default, I
>> think "enabled by default" is the way to go. Your argument that such script
>> engines are broken
>> seems reasonable, since this only applies to script engines that implement
>> javax.script.Compilable
>> in the first place. We still might want to add way to turn compilation off
>> for individual scripts.
>> One other thing to consider is that if compilation fails, it might make
>> sense to log a warning and
>> fall back to the existing interpreted mode.
>>
>> Does anyone else have any concerns with this?
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> On 4/14/2020 9:48 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> as there was probably enough time that has passed by I would intend to
>>> create a CSR in the next days
>>> with the PR as per Kevin's suggestion.
>>>
>>> (For the case that this feature should not be active by default, the CSR
>>> will suggest to define a
>>> new "compile" PI in the form <?compile [true|false] ?> (default, if no PI
>>> data given: true), which
>>> is independent of the existence of a language PI (this way it becomes also
>>> possible to allow
>>> compilation of external scripts denoted with the script-element, which do
>>> not need a page language
>>> to be set as the file's extension allows the appropriate script engine to
>>> be loaded and used for
>>> execution). A compile-PI would allow for turning compilation of scripts on
>>> by just adding the PI
>>> <?compile?> or <?compile true?> to FXML files (and <?compile false?> to
>>> turn off), which seems to
>>> be simple and self-documentary. In general employing such compile PIs
>>> allows for setting compilation
>>> of scripts on and off throughout an FXML file.)
>>>
>>> ---rony
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04.04.2020 18:03, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>>
>>>> On 03.04.2020 01:21, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>> Script code should be executed faster after compilation, so any FXML page
>>>> that hosts script code
>>>> may
>>>> benefit.
>>>>
>>>> The benefits depend on the type of script (and maybe its size and its
>>>> complexity) and also on the
>>>> types of event handlers the scripts serve, e.g. move or drag event
>>>> handlers may benefit
>>>> significantly. This is because repeated invocation of compiled script
>>>> event handlers do not cause
>>>> the reparsing of that script's source and interpreting it on each
>>>> invocation, which may be
>>>> expensive
>>>> depending on the script engine, but rather allows the immediate
>>>> evaluation/execution of the
>>>> compiled
>>>> script by the script engine.
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>> In principle there are three possibilities:
>>>>
>>>> 1) If a script engine implements javax.script.Compilable, compile the
>>>> script and execute the
>>>> compiled version. In the case of event handlers compile and buffer
>>>> the compiled script and
>>>> execute the compiled script each time its registered event fires.
>>>>
>>>> o Pro: immediately benefits all existing FXML pages that host
>>>> scripts
>>>> o Con: it is theoretically possible (albeit quite unlikely) that
>>>> there are scripts that fail
>>>> compiling but have been employed successfully in interpreted mode
>>>>
>>>> 2) Introduce some form of an optional attribute (e.g.
>>>> "compile={true|false}") to the FXML
>>>> language PI that switches on compilation of scripts hosted in FXML
>>>> definitions if the script
>>>> engine implements the javax.script.Compilable interface. If missing
>>>> it would default to
>>>> "false".
>>>> (Alternatively, add a "compile" PI, that if present causes the
>>>> compilation of scripts, if the
>>>> script engine supports it. It would be an error if the "compile" PI
>>>> was present, but the
>>>> "language" PI was not.)
>>>>
>>>> o Pro: compilation of FXML hosted scripts is done only, if the FXML
>>>> definition of the
>>>> language
>>>> PI gets changed
>>>> o Con: benefit not made available automatically to existing FXML
>>>> pages that host scripts
>>>>
>>>> 3) Another possibility would be to define a boolean
>>>> attribute/property "compile" for script
>>>> and
>>>> node elements and only compile the scripts, if the property is set to
>>>> true
>>>>
>>>> o Pro: compilation of FXML hosted scripts is done only, if the FXML
>>>> definition gets changed
>>>> accordingly
>>>> o Con: potential benefit not made available automatically to
>>>> existing FXML pages that
>>>> host scripts
>>>>
>>>> 2 and 3 could be combined, where 2 would define the default compilation
>>>> behavior that then could be
>>>> overruled individually by 3.
>>>>
>>>> The question would be whether 2 or/and 3 are really necessary as it can be
>>>> expected that
>>>> compilation
>>>> of scripts by the script engines would find the same errors as while
>>>> interpreting the very same
>>>> scripts (if not, the script engine is badly broken and it could be argued
>>>> that then the
>>>> interpretation part of the script engine might be expected to be broken as
>>>> well which would be
>>>> quite
>>>> dangerous from an integrity POV; the same consideration applies as well if
>>>> the execution of the
>>>> compiled script would behave differently to interpreting the very same
>>>> script by the same script
>>>> engine).
>>>>
>>>> The current WIP implements 1 above and includes an appropriate test unit.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> The compilation of scripts needs to be done by the Java script engines
>>>> (implementing both,
>>>> javax.script.Engine and javax.script.Compilable) as well as controlling
>>>> the execution of compiled
>>>> scripts ([javax.script.CompiledScript]
>>>> (https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/14/docs/api/java.scripting/javax/script/CompiledScript.html)).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---rony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
