JDEE

Hi Ludvic,

I'm working on a library that allows for any Java scripting language
to be plugged into the JDEE.  After doing that, I'm going to evaluate
a few scripting languages that will be the "supported" set used for
things that beanshell is currently used for (i.e. extending
interfaces).  That said, I'm pretty set on using ABCL common lisp as
it is a lisp and has a strong support community.

After writing the plugin architecture/libs, you could write an
implementation for Groovey, Scala etc.  The implementation will
essentially be a set of Emacs lisp classes (eieio) that you create by
extending a provided set that will end up looking somewhat like what
you see in beanshell.el.

Thanks for your input!


Ludovic Courtès writes:
 > Hello!
 > 
 > Has anyone tried to use JDE with Scala?  (Or Groovy, or some other
 > language in the family.)
 > 
 > It looks like many features could be reused as is with these languages:
 > import wizards, completion, help, compilation, running, debugging, etc.
 > 
 > Currently ‘M-x jde-mode’ in Scala buffer switches to Java as the major
 > mode, which isn’t appropriate.  Any idea how to approach this?
 > 
 > Thanks,
 > Ludo’.
 > 
 > 
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
 > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
 > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
 > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
 > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
 > _______________________________________________
 > jdee-users mailing list
 > jdee-users@...
 > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jdee-users


-- 
Paul Landes
landes@...

Hi Paul,

Paul Landes <landes@...> writes:

> I'm working on a library that allows for any Java scripting language
> to be plugged into the JDEE.  After doing that, I'm going to evaluate
> a few scripting languages that will be the "supported" set used for
> things that beanshell is currently used for (i.e. extending
> interfaces).  That said, I'm pretty set on using ABCL common lisp as
> it is a lisp and has a strong support community.

Excellent!  Any ETA for that?

I was thinking that a simple approach would have been to somehow split
‘jde-mode’ into ‘jde-minor-mode’, which would add all the bindings and
wizardry that’s also applicable to non-Java source code, and ‘jde-mode’,
which would do that plus inherit ‘java-mode’ settings.  What do you
think?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès writes:
 > > I'm working on a library that allows for any Java scripting language
 > > to be plugged into the JDEE.  After doing that, I'm going to evaluate
 > > a few scripting languages that will be the "supported" set used for
 > > things that beanshell is currently used for (i.e. extending
 > > interfaces).  That said, I'm pretty set on using ABCL common lisp as
 > > it is a lisp and has a strong support community.
 > 
 > Excellent!  Any ETA for that?

No, sorry.  If I did this for pay I'd have something more definite.

 > I was thinking that a simple approach would have been to somehow split
 > ‘jde-mode’ into ‘jde-minor-mode’, which would add all the bindings and
 > wizardry that’s also applicable to non-Java source code, and ‘jde-mode’,
 > which would do that plus inherit ‘java-mode’ settings.  What do you
 > think?

This is a good idea.  There are many times I'd like to do a class
lookup in beanshell buffer etc.  Can you elaborate on the details of
this?



-- 
Paul Landes
landes@...

Hello,

Paul Landes <landes@...> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès writes:

[...]

>  > I was thinking that a simple approach would have been to somehow split
>  > ‘jde-mode’ into ‘jde-minor-mode’, which would add all the bindings and
>  > wizardry that’s also applicable to non-Java source code, and ‘jde-mode’,
>  > which would do that plus inherit ‘java-mode’ settings.  What do you
>  > think?
>
> This is a good idea.  There are many times I'd like to do a class
> lookup in beanshell buffer etc.  Can you elaborate on the details of
> this?

That’s about all I can say.  :-)

Implementing such a minor mode seems quite simple and beneficial to me,
but I don’t want to spend time on this these days (especially if there’s
a Grand Plan such as the one you mentioned that’s to supersede it.)

Thanks,
Ludo’.