From: | "Igal (at) Lucee(dot)org" <igal(at)lucee(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | jflack <jflack(at)math(dot)purdue(dot)edu>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Implementing a new Scripting Language |
Date: | 2016-01-27 18:17:35 |
Message-ID: | 56A909BF.1050001@lucee.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/27/2016 9:58 AM, jflack wrote:
> I just did a quick search on Lucee and what I found suggests that
> it compiles to JVM bytecode and runs on a JVM. If that is the
> case, and it can compile methods that will have the sort of
> method signatures PL/Java expects, and you can put the .class
> files in a jar and load it, your job should be just about done. :)
yes, Lucee uses ASM4 to construct class files which are mostly POJOs
> Or, you might end up writing thin wrappers in Java, probably
> nothing more.
>
> Another possibility: Java has pluggable script engine support
> (java specification request 233, see the javax.script package).
> Does Lucee have an existing JSR 233 engine implementation?
the next version of Lucee (currently in Beta) does support JSR-223,
which I actually mentioned as a viable solution in my first email in
this thread. That would be awesome if PL/Java would support JSR-223.
thanks,
Igal
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Igal @ Lucee.org | 2016-01-27 18:21:13 | Re: Implementing a new Scripting Language |
Previous Message | Chapman Flack | 2016-01-27 18:03:26 | Re: Implementing a new Scripting Language |