xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Samson, Lyndon [IT]" <lyndon.sam...@ssmb.com>
Subject RE: Pluggable components ( was: Volunteers: First Cut)
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:32:55 GMT
Come on Sam, if you want to volunteer to integrate BeanScripting into Batik
just come
out and say so! :-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 2:17 PM
To: general@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Pluggable components ( was: Volunteers: First Cut)


Christophe Jolif wrote:
>
> Before implementing Batik script package, we already considered
> BSF, but in Batik we don't necessarly need such an ambitious
> framework, because we don't really need to script an application
> (the viewer or the transcoder for example) but "only" an SVG file
> (=> an SVG DOM). And in a certain way, this high level framework
> may not allowed us to be as compliant with the SVG spec ECMAScript
> binding as we want (we need for example to access to Rhino
> "internals" to achieve this). Another point is that even if we
> provide the ability to use several scripting languages we
> emphasize on ECMAScript as it is the one required by SVG spec and
> thus will certainly be widespread in SVG files for obvious
> compatibility reasons.

Batik's tight integration with Rhino is a good thing.  I would not suggest
changing that one bit.

Looking in the org.apache.batik.script directory, it looks like there is
some additional support for jacl and jpython.  It is in this limited way
that I think that BSF could provide some value add, namely by increasing
significantly the number of "second tier" languages supported.

By the way, Xalan doesn't really have a need to script an application, but
"only" a XSLT stylesheet.  It chooses to do so via BSF.

> Of course this doesn't mean that will never consider to switch
> to BSF again, but it is not one of the project priority for now.

Priorities in open source projects tend not to be determined in a top down
fashion, but rather based on where the exist an adequate number of
volunteers to work on a given area.  If a volunteer were to show up wishing
to replace this particular area with a more general solution, and promising
not to perturb the overall tighter integration with Rhino in the process,
would such a volunteer be welcome?

- Sam Ruby


---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

Mime
View raw message