Re: final Groovy JSR?

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@...> wrote:
> [...]
> > Back on the level of integration mentioned above, and on this
> > portability / interoperability aspect, Groovy mandates a seamless
> > integration with Java. But does it mean we'd also mandate a perfect
> > interoperability with other Groovy implementations?
> >
>
>  I think it would be better if you did, but it's up to you to decide.

Yes, for sure, conceptually speaking, this would be desired.
For Java, this is simpler as a call to a method is directly encoded in
the bytecode.
No intermediary layer of indirection.
It then just depends on the runtime part (JDK classes, third party
libraries, etc)
But for a dynamic language, in the bytecode you'll find some calls to
utility classes handling the double dispatch.
Some of them are public APIs (which will be part of the JSR), but
others may be present that are specific to each implementation.
So we'll have to think deeper as to what we really want to make portable or not.
Tricky issue 

> [...]
>  You're allowed to make that choice.  It's up to your expert group to
>  decide whether that's a good choice.  Personally, I think this might
>  be acceptable for a first release, but long term it will limit
>  acceptance of Groovy.  But you should work through the scenarios for
>  how you expect people to use Groovy to see if it will be an issue for
>  you.  For example, do you expect people to write libraries using Groovy,
>  which they would distribute as jar files?

Right.
This has always been possible (as long as you have the Groovy runtime
on your classpath).
We can seamlessly integrate with Java, or any other alternative
language for the JVM.
But the problem comes when we have to be compatible between different
implementations of Groovy.
At the basic object level, things are just fine, but it's when you get
into metaprogramming techniques that this may be more problematic to
achieve that goal.
We'll see if it's doable or not, but I suspect we won't go as far in
the first version of the spec.

> [...]
>  We include them in the TCK User's Guide.
> [...]
>  Let me figure out how to get them to you.
> [...]
> https://jtharness.dev.java.net/

Great, thanks a lot for the link.

> > Have you got something in mind here?  (ie. integrating Groovy in the
> JDK)
>
>  No, I didn't have anything specific in mind.  This has been an issue
>  for a few other JSRs, but I don't expect it to be an issues for you.
>
>  We're very interested in having Groovy work well with GlassFish, but
>  I don't think we'll be proposing to include it in Java EE or Java SE
>  anytime soon.  

Then what's the poing of making a JSR? ))

Thanks again Bill for your explanations, the links, and your fast replies!
This is very much appreciated.

--

-- 
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
G2One, Inc. Vice-President Technology
http://www.g2one.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email