To continue discussion about extension languages in Turbine.
I wrote BRL service, layout, page, screen, navigation classes for the
same reasons (announce was posted weak ago). Instead Python it use
Scheme and Kawa as interpreter.
Now I'm working on support for coding actions in Scheme to get hole
system for RAD.
My question. What about to develop conventions for coding action paths
for extension languages and additional methods for ActionLoader?
The goal is to have uniform extension interface similar to one
we already have in Turbine template system.
leon> We think JPython support could add some nice benefits to Turbine:
leon> 1. You don't need to recompile classes - just edit them and save (TDK
leon> newbies can actually create some screens without rebuilding)
leon> 2. Python is easy. Even designers might be able to write simple sceen
leon> code. <GASP> :-)
leon> 3. JPython can be used for rapid prototyping and then later on compiled to
leon> real .class files with jpythonc.
leon> 4. If you do development/debugging on a remote server (like we've done in
leon> the past) you can easily edit files without the need to remote recompile or
leon> upload .jar files.
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
