Incze Lajos wrote:
In the long run and in the new Maven code I won't be promoting Jelly for
plugins at all, but will be promoting the use of beanshell. I'm sure XML
programming will remain wildly popular and if that is the case I will be
reimplementing Jelly taking it down to the bare metal with xpp3 and
using OGNL for expressions. I am no longer a fan of Jelly. I know people
seem to love XML programming but I think it's the single biggest mistake
I've made with Maven and it has cost us all dearly. I won't be making
any similiar mistakes in the future.


I would consider using groovy in the long run. It is a real scripting
language has all the structures (designed in) that were important in
jelly scripting (ant builder, xml builder, can emit xml sax events, etc.)
has excellent structures which could be important in workflows (closures
are, in fact, 1st class object code snippets that could be called on
worflow stages), can be interpreted AND compiled to bytecode, the same
way easy bean integration as in the jelly scripting, etc. And last but
not least: the syntax is not XML, but real programming language with
pretty good collection interfaces (which seems to be one of the most
important factors in project builders). Seemingly, the current codebase
can be 'mechanically' transported from jelly to groovy.


I agree that Jelly is a bit rough and that Groovy looks awesome. I've used Beanshell a bit, and it's OK, but something just seems to be missing.

Jason, do you have any thoughts on using something like BSF for the plugins? That way, if I'm understanding things correctly, the actual plugin implementations could be written in a scripting language of choice. But, maybe that would just cause more headaches. The important part seems to be making the POM data accessible in a nice generic way -- no matter what the language.


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to