Groovy script component could support component bindings

Details

  • Type: New Feature New Feature
  • Status: Closed Closed
  • Priority: Major Major
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Affects Version/s: 2.0.1
  • Fix Version/s: 2.0.2
  • Component/s: Modules: Scripting
  • Labels:
    None
  • User impact:
    Medium
  • Affects Docs:
    Yes
  • Migration Impact:
    Binding would need to be documented for Groovy scripts
  • Similar Issues:
    None

Description

Bindings are not currently supported for scripting components but Groovy scripts could support them by adding a binding to the namespace

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Hide
Permalink
Ross Mason added a comment -

just thought of an easy way of doing this. Will try it out now.

Show
Ross Mason added a comment - just thought of an easy way of doing this. Will try it out now.
Hide
Permalink
Daniel Feist added a comment -

Ross, just had a look at your changeset..

Although using the java bindings here is valid and works with java based scripting languages, I'd initially thought of binding to script variables as a more natural/universal way of implementing bindings for this component type. Perhaps we can do both using <binding> (bind to script variables) and <java-binding>/<interface-binding> (bind to java interface?

On a separate note perhaps we can extend the binding concept to allow bindings to use expressions (using new expression evaluator) and other components and not just endpoints. This relates somewhat to the composite component issue.

Show
Daniel Feist added a comment - Ross, just had a look at your changeset.. Although using the java bindings here is valid and works with java based scripting languages, I'd initially thought of binding to script variables as a more natural/universal way of implementing bindings for this component type. Perhaps we can do both using <binding> (bind to script variables) and <java-binding>/<interface-binding> (bind to java interface? On a separate note perhaps we can extend the binding concept to allow bindings to use expressions (using new expression evaluator) and other components and not just endpoints. This relates somewhat to the composite component issue.
Hide
Permalink
Ross Mason added a comment -

Hi Dan,

Sounds interesting. By all means write something up. I agree there should be different types of <binding> but my goal here was to match current capabilities, since this isn't a major feature point right now.

Show
Ross Mason added a comment - Hi Dan, Sounds interesting. By all means write something up. I agree there should be different types of <binding> but my goal here was to match current capabilities, since this isn't a major feature point right now.
Hide
Permalink
Daniel Feist added a comment -

> I agree there should be different types of <binding> my goal here was to match current capabilities, since this isn't a major feature point right now.

Agreed, good idea. Only concern was that we are using "<binding>" element for this java-specific case and therefore won't be able to use this element for more generic/universal script component bindings (to script variables instead of java interface maybe) in the future. A solution would leave what you added as is and just change the element name to "java-binding".

Should probably write up the idea to extend bindings in the composite component issue, or create a new issue for it, i'll do that at some point.

Show
Daniel Feist added a comment - > I agree there should be different types of <binding> my goal here was to match current capabilities, since this isn't a major feature point right now. Agreed, good idea. Only concern was that we are using "<binding>" element for this java-specific case and therefore won't be able to use this element for more generic/universal script component bindings (to script variables instead of java interface maybe) in the future. A solution would leave what you added as is and just change the element name to "java-binding". Should probably write up the idea to extend bindings in the composite component issue, or create a new issue for it, i'll do that at some point.
Hide
Permalink
Ross Mason added a comment -

I see your point. So would it be a Java binding or an interface binding? Are they th same thing? For me the logical differentiation could be a Java Binding would bind a java object directly, an interface binding would generate a proxy or even a JNI wrapper.

Show
Ross Mason added a comment - I see your point. So would it be a Java binding or an interface binding? Are they th same thing? For me the logical differentiation could be a Java Binding would bind a java object directly, an interface binding would generate a proxy or even a JNI wrapper.
Hide
Permalink
Daniel Feist added a comment -

Maybe to be clear we should call it <java-interface-binding>. In fact these different binding types probably also apply to the java component.

We should be as clear as possible naming them, and maybe only use the <binding> element if there is a clear default binding type for a given component type.

Show
Daniel Feist added a comment - Maybe to be clear we should call it <java-interface-binding>. In fact these different binding types probably also apply to the java component. We should be as clear as possible naming them, and maybe only use the <binding> element if there is a clear default binding type for a given component type.
Hide
Permalink
Ross Mason added a comment -

fixed in: r12167

Show
Ross Mason added a comment - fixed in: r12167

People

Vote (0)
Watch (1)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:
    Resolved: