Mailing-List: contact bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Bean Scripting Framework developers" <bsf-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates
 74.125.44.29 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=L+UsHY9kpa2l0YVD/DITbuuSojAcGqALt6/uZgkA9NbOoPveVoZNDYzyRklmCZPoGo
         KhQG8kpO0IaQ+ioLgz+yUDDC7WFRAdKM7KnTXoEGkFdc+2hwoOGqa8SsYYyOI18c7yPk
         2fFkIUbHXx4pJtNhiDxdlzAihqfbFLV01GkkI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <71e1b5740903240406y36cc733cmb94c91ca712b7618@mail.gmail.com>
References: <71e1b5740903240406y36cc733cmb94c91ca712b7618@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:20:46 +0000
Message-ID: <25aac9fc0903240420k35c10afdsaf012fab0ab176b2@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A little remark ad "compatibility" of BSF3 ... (Re: svn commit:
	r757581 - in /jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3: ./ testing/jruby-1.1.2/
	testing/jruby-1.1.2/src/test/java/org/apache/bsf/testing/javascript/
	testing/jruby-1.2.0/ testing/jruby-1.2.0/src/test/j
From: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
To: Bean Scripting Framework developers <bsf-dev@jakarta.apache.org>,
 antelder@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 24/03/2009, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
>  <Rony.Flatscher@wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
>  > Hi there,
>  >
>  >> Modified: jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES
>  >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES?rev=757581&r1=757580&r2=757581&view=diff
>  >> ==============================================================================
>  >> --- jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES (original)
>  >> +++ jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES Mon Mar 23 22:59:29 2009
>  >> @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
>  >> -Apache BSF 3 Beta3 Release Notes
>  >> ---------------------------------
>  >> -
>  >> -Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the Java Platform APIs.
>  >> -Note that this software hasn't been tested with the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore is not a
>  >> -compatible implementation of JSR-223.
>  >> -
>  >> -This 3.0-beta3 release is a maintenance release update to support for the latest releases
>  >> -of various script language engines.
>  >> +Apache BSF 3 Beta3 Release Notes
>  >> +--------------------------------
>  >> +
>  >> +Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the Java Platform APIs.
>  >> +Note that this software hasn't been tested with the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore is not a
>  >> +compatible implementation of JSR-223.
>  >> +
>  >> +This 3.0-beta3 release is a maintenance release update to support for the latest releases
>  >> +of various script language engines.
>  >>
>  >> Propchange: jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/RELEASE_NOTES
>  >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>     svn:eol-style = native
>  >>
>  > Although we have no TCK of JSR-223 (package javax.script) to run BSF3
>  > against, we still are compatible to the specification! As such any
>  > JSR-223 scripting language and scripts should be able to run against
>  > BSF3. One important point about BSF3 is the possibility it opens to let
>  > Java 1.4 and 5 use JSR-223 scripting.
>  >
>  > Now, not being a native English speaker I cannot really come up with a
>  > text that expresses this (we implement the documented "javax.script"
>  > package and as such it is compatible with the specifications, but the
>  > concrete implementation of Java 6 of java.scriptx may differ in
>  > behaviour slightly, which only could be tested if having the TCK for
>  > JSR-223 available to us, which it is not).
>  >
>  > Maybe you could come up with some sentence that could make that clear,
>  > as otherwise I fear that interested potential users are shied away,
>  > expecting BSF3 not to be compatible with JSR-223?
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  >
>  > ---rony
>  >
>
>  That sentence is a direct copy from an email when this was discussed a
>  while back [1], though I agree it could sound better. How about
>  changing "is not a compatible implementation" to "can not claim to be
>  a compatible implementation", so:
>
>  "Apache BSF 3 is an implementation of JSR-223, the Scripting for the
>  Java Platform APIs. Note that this software hasn't been tested with
>  the JSR 223 TCK, and therefore can not claim to be a compatible
>  implementation of JSR-223."

Seems good to me, though I think it could go further.

Is it a complete implementation, i.e. are all aspects of the API implemented?

Are there tests for all aspects of the API, including edge-cases?

If the TCK were used, are the developers confident would it pass?

>    ...ant
>
>  [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/ly67fgalxi3aej73
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org