Scripting engines in V2 distribution

[Cantor, Scott]

On 4/1/13 2:59 PM, "Brent Putman" <putmanb at georgetown.edu> wrote:

>Yes, given the way things are now, shipping the engine is tantamount to
>us shipping a particular version of the language, e.g. Groovy 2.1.2
>rather than just "the Groovy engine".  One question is whether we should
>try and do that, as opposed to letting the deployer
> plug in whatever version they want, and allowing them to upgrade the
>scripting language impl on their own schedule, etc.

I think that's a much better idea.

>Probably so.  We don't need to ship the actual javax.script framework JAR
>b/c it's in Java 6, and it's an open question as to whether we ship any
>particular language impls.

It's clear that right now we really don't. I suspect in fact that people
are actually ending up with two copies of the Engine classes by dropping,
say, Jython into the classpath.

I really had assumed that what we were shipping actually made Jython, et
al. work. But obviously I was mistaken, so that changes the question.

-- Scott