Mailing-List: contact commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:10:54 +0200
Subject: Re: [jelly] Jelly and BSF?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
To: "Jakarta Commons Users List" <commons-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <3F12C625.9090904@anthonyeden.com>
Message-Id: <5CFD029A-B60D-11D7-B4D2-003065B86866@activemath.org>

OK, it's dead simple... have a look at
${JELLY_HOME}/src/java/org/apache/commons/jelly/Jelly.java

Maybe there are a little bit of classloader issues...
Is there a "compile-time" in BSF ?

Paul


On Lundi, juil 14, 2003, at 17:03 Europe/Paris, Anthony Eden wrote:

> The advantage is to allow applications which use BSF to use Jelly 
> without needing to code directly to the Jelly engine.
>
> Sincerely,
> Anthony Eden
>
> Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>> On Dimanche, juil 13, 2003, at 15:33 Europe/Paris, Laird J. Nelson 
>> wrote:
>>> I'm not entirely sure of the ground I'm standing on here, but what 
>>> would
>>> it take to make Jelly a BSF-compliant scripting language?  Is that a
>>> meaningful question?
>> Looks very decent to me.
>> What's more in a bsf connection than connecting some context and 
>> providing bean access ?
>> The thing is, jelly already does behave in this way (addressing 
>> bean-properties by names at least)... so what would be the advantage >> ?
>> The startup/packaging ? (this is where, indeed, to me, jelly is a bit 
>> painful)
>> Paul
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>