RE: introduction

:: > i've just subscribed to the list because i'm thinking of
:: > integrating beanshell into andromda (sourceforge).
:: 
:: I wondered about the spelling. That's AndroMDA, I take it. 
:: (Not the 6 other hits containing the "properly" spelled 
:: "Andromeda"..)

yep, AndroMDA

http://sourceforge.net/projects/andromda


:: > so there's two possible way to solve this:
:: > 
:: > A: create a preprocessor that turns the <+ +> blocks into
:: > stream.write()'s and call untouched beanshell
:: 
:: Much preferable, IMO. It has two major benefits:
:: 
:: * It keeps BeanShell's design clean as a scripting engine, 
:: instead of morphing it into a half-done template generation 
:: / scripting engine.
:: 
:: * It preserves *your* freedom to host such a preprocessor on 
:: top of any other scripting component (Perl, DynamicJava, 
:: ...), should the need or desire arise.
:: 

the "problem" with this is that you need to differentiate between

${methodName}

and

${
	for (...)
	{
	}
}

because one of them needs to be toString()'ed. so if you don't
understand the enclosed language you need something like a
${=methodName} (again similar to JSP's)

not that it's such a big problem...

but i would only like a language extension if it could be kept completly
separated from what beanshell is today. i don't know wether it's
technically/architectually possible to create such a language extension
(lexer/parser/etc) that can be easily turned on and off?

thanks,

- 101










-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01