commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <>
Subject Re: [SCXML] Proposal to move to Java 8 minimum and drop/replace XML/XPath support with JSON
Date Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:00:13 GMT
We'll now make a start with executing on the below proposal, moving to Java 8 
first and then introducing JSON datamodel support to replace and drop XML/XPath 
datamodel thereafter.

Regards, Ate

On 2015-12-09 10:15, Ate Douma wrote:
> Since early this year the progress and development of Commons SCXML 2.0 has
> severely declined because of two major technical hurdles, and thereafter of
> both motivation and lack of time:
> - The SCXML XML/XPath datamodel support has been dropped from the final
> W3C SCXML 1.0 specification [1], because of too many functional and semantic
> complications and limitation, as well as lack of interest for implementing it.
> The implementation of the XML/XPath datamodel in Commons SCXML has been
> problematic for precisely the same reasons.
> And not being able to provide such implementation properly by us (Commons
> SCXML) actually has been one (final) argument for dropping it from the
> specification...
> - The implementation of the Javascript datamodel support based on the
> old/outdated Rhino Javascript engine in Java 7 and below, turned out to be
> quite difficult. While it turns out to be much easier and reliable, but
> different, with the new Nashorn Javascript engine in Java 8+.
> After bringing this first up on the user@ list earlier this week, I now want to
> propose the following major changes to revive the further development towards
> Commons SCXML 2.0:
> - drop the support for XML/XPath based datamodel, and instead introduce a much
>    easier to implement and support JSON datamodel as alternative, for all current
>    Commons SCXML support 'languages': JEXL, Groovy and Javascript.
> - bump the minimum Java version to 8 so we can leverage and only need to support
>    the Nashorn Javascript engine
> The only user response so far on user@ is fully in favor of these changes,
> and both myself and Woonsan Ko are motivated to continue developing and
> completing the goals for Commons SCXML 2.0 based on these changes.
> If nobody here has strong arguments against the above proposal (and assuming
> lazy consensus otherwise), we would like to start on these changes shortly,
> before the end of the year.
> Kind regards,
> Ate Douma
> Woonsan Ko
> [1]

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message