Re: Does FM support varargs or arrays in method calls?

FWIW, I have a rather good generic dynamic method invocation library  
that handles all cases -- overloaded methods, variable argument  
methods, and their possible combinations, compatibly with Java  
Language Specification. This code is part of my Dynalang effort (see http://dynalang.sourceforge.net 
); it's a generic framework for integration of dynamic languages on  
JVM that has some support from JRuby already and I also plan to sneak  
it into Rhino and maybe ultimately FreeMarker (3.0?). I also hope to  
get Jython folks on board for it...

Anyway, I digress. What I wanted to say is I've cross-ported my all- 
purpose method invocation code from Dynalang codebase to FreeMarker  
2.4 codebase last weekend (honestly, the original inspiration for it  
came from FreeMarker's existing method invocation code anyway, so  
they're pretty much cross-pollinating in my mind), and all looks fine  
and dandy with it in tests. If I can find a bit of a time this  
weekend, I'll port it back to 2.3 branch. It'd really make sense to  
have this functionality readily available to people as they're moving  
into using 1.5 features (also, note to self: backport support for  
java.lang.Iterable if I didn't already; I'm just too sleepy to even  
look at the code right now).

Attila.

--
home: http://www.szegedi.org
weblog: http://constc.blogspot.com

On 2007.12.06., at 16:45, Newman, John W wrote:

> Ok don't worry about it, I just released the new version of the app  
> with that giant mess in there.  I am fine with that until FM 2.4 is  
> stable & released ... I just hope my boss doesn't see it =)
>
> Thanks guys
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] 
> ] On Behalf Of Daniel Dekany
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:16 AM
> To: FreeMarker-user; JennyHill
> Subject: Re: [FreeMarker-user] Does FM support varargs or arrays in  
> method calls?
>
> Thursday, December 6, 2007, 3:39:10 PM, Newman, John W wrote:
>
>> Yeah I tried 2.4 about 2 months ago and it wasn't stable enough at
>> the time.  If a backport of that feature to 2.3.x isn't too much  
>> work that would be
>> cool.
>
> Really, Attila, is backporting it more work than copying BeansWrapper
> classes? Because something like BeansWrapper could be a 3rd party
> plugin as well, and that should work both with 2.3.x and 2.4.x. Oh...
> except that in the 2.4 source code we use Java generics... Then not
> just copying indeed. /-:
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Daniel Dekany






-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services
for just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace