ECMAScript target version

[Rod Widdowson]

My immediate reaction is that it is out of scope for us to be telling any of our customer how to write scripts, and in particular
what language they should use.

We should go for the lowest common denominator in our example (so if something will work in rhino and Nashorn that is what we should
ship).  Further I think that we need to have the simplest possible code in our examples.  So the extra levekl of function
indirection that a lot of the samples currently have is just confusing for people who are not programmers and must want to get a job
done.  So we might know that

(funcrtion(foo, custom, prc){return false;} (input, custom, prc);

Is the same as

false;

but it is far more interesting to our end users that they see the latter.

R

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at shibboleth.net] On Behalf Of Tom Scavo
> Sent: 24 July 2018 13:03
> To: Shibboleth Developers <dev at shibboleth.net>
> Subject: ECMAScript target version
> 
> Until recently I didn't know much about the various scripting engines (Rhino, Nashorn, GraalVM, etc.) and how well they support
the
> ECMAScript standard. After doing some research on the subject, I've concluded that the target version for sample scripts should be
> ECMAScript 5.1, so I'll stick to that as best I can. This is rather inconvenient since ECMAScript 2015 (aka ECMAScript 6) is near
universal
> AFAICT.
> 
> In any case, I documented suggested best coding practices in the ScriptTypeConfiguration [1] topic. I tried to stay away from
> contentious issues (involving [2], e.g.) but if you could review and comment on what I wrote in the wiki, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] ScriptTypeConfiguration  https://wiki.shibboleth.net/confluence/x/iQAOAg
> [2] https://issues.shibboleth.net/jira/browse/JPAR-121
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to dev-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net