MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAASLQ4Mva7dAXiS_c9OLhV4VzNHF=XNKJosuS5gtZTB6b4TW1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5F2EB313.8090706@anastigmatix.net>
 <CAASLQ4M0uvNj0EyMWWNsizT1KtnWx0WFbk89ud9EVHZbu12LMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5F2EC4F4.3080608@anastigmatix.net>
 <CAASLQ4M3pR+ZL+uPvcQ-dAEL2KdH_PGe-_pBhsjvOgN5qvf+aA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5F31EFEC.1080609@anastigmatix.net>
 <CAASLQ4NU9v=nuLDG-LneC68LuqKRXchFckU7mCZT9YQDNKqwvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5F368380.9070203@anastigmatix.net>
 <CAASLQ4NgH+tXbdUSA8xDh2ct3gAS3xa8V7=E0gcYd+d=m8kujw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5F368A99.6070709@anastigmatix.net> <5F36965C.60707@anastigmatix.net>
 <5F3A7DC6.8090905@anastigmatix.net>
 <CAASLQ4PEgo5Nj0EVsOfGoB96dQFXfFYxrrB0rS1wdad7x_E5fA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAASLQ4OowXOmnbbbT0Wh1ZkB4h=6JQfC61ojmN07EYnO0QCcow@mail.gmail.com>
 <5F3D32E9.80504@anastigmatix.net> <5F3D36BE.70703@anastigmatix.net>
 <5F3D38F8.7050907@anastigmatix.net> <5F3D3A75.5010304@anastigmatix.net>
 <5F3D3D2E.4070109@anastigmatix.net> <5F3D43BD.4020900@anastigmatix.net>
 <5F3DA48D.7090408@anastigmatix.net>
In-Reply-To: <5F3DA48D.7090408@anastigmatix.net>
From: Kartik Ohri <kartikohri13@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 15:45:01 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAASLQ4NGoruXs1+fNsXnsic7cRjqceJ-PiYofG-OMPUWnxDjWA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: the ScriptingMojo
To: Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>
Cc: pljava-dev@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000007d65905ad74a163"
Precedence: bulk

--00000000000007d65905ad74a163
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>
> - I was thinking of simplifying the parameters to processBuilder, to not
>   need the caller to separately pass the command string and a list of the
>   rest of the arguments. An idea that just hit me was why not just
>   processBuilder(Consumer<List<String>>)? A script could use it like:
>
>   var pb = processBuilder(function(l) {
>     l.add(command);
>     l.addAll(stuff);
>     l.add(thing);
>     ...
>   });
>
>   so the script would avoid the messiness of allocating its own ArrayList
>   and so on. On the Java side that's just
>
>   pb = new ProcessBuilder();
>   callback.accept(pb.command());
>   ...
>   return pb;
>

Hi!
I am working adding these changes but I am particularly stuck at this one.
It seems that Nashorn and Graal do not support SAM inside SAM or I am doing
this the wrong way. Please see https://www.ideone.com/cQVGuB and
https://www.ideone.com/1x7Ah7. The former one fails at runtime but the
latter completes execution. (Here I have done a Consumer<Function, ?>
whereas Function<Consumer, ?> will be required for our use case, but both
fail at runtime anyways). This is the commit (
https://github.com/amCap1712/pljava/commit/136a8e879951432ec47faeb74e2a86e848481e67)
with changes that fails. I have been able to work around the issue using
the approach here
https://github.com/amCap1712/pljava/commit/d5977c5cf386758fb2d9e56524b05f9549cefe31
.

Regards,
Kartik

--00000000000007d65905ad74a163
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex">- I was thinking of simplifying the parameters to proces=
sBuilder, to not<br>
=C2=A0 need the caller to separately pass the command string and a list of =
the<br>
=C2=A0 rest of the arguments. An idea that just hit me was why not just<br>
=C2=A0 processBuilder(Consumer&lt;List&lt;String&gt;&gt;)? A script could u=
se it like:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 var pb =3D processBuilder(function(l) {<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 l.add(command);<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 l.addAll(stuff);<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 l.add(thing);<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ...<br>
=C2=A0 });<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 so the script would avoid the messiness of allocating its own ArrayL=
ist<br>
=C2=A0 and so on. On the Java side that&#39;s just<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 pb =3D new ProcessBuilder();<br>
=C2=A0 callback.accept(pb.command());<br>
=C2=A0 ...<br>
=C2=A0 return pb;<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi!</div><div>I am wo=
rking adding these changes but I am particularly stuck at this one. It seem=
s that Nashorn and Graal do not support SAM inside SAM or I am doing this t=
he wrong way. Please see=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://www.ideone.com/cQVGuB">htt=
ps://www.ideone.com/cQVGuB</a>=C2=A0and=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://www.ideone.=
com/1x7Ah7">https://www.ideone.com/1x7Ah7</a>. The former one fails at runt=
ime but the latter completes execution. (Here I have done a Consumer&lt;Fun=
ction, ?&gt;=C2=A0 whereas Function&lt;Consumer, ?&gt; will be required for=
 our use case, but both fail at runtime anyways). This is the commit (<a hr=
ef=3D"https://github.com/amCap1712/pljava/commit/136a8e879951432ec47faeb74e=
2a86e848481e67">https://github.com/amCap1712/pljava/commit/136a8e879951432e=
c47faeb74e2a86e848481e67</a>) with changes that fails. I have been able to =
work around the issue using the approach here=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://githu=
b.com/amCap1712/pljava/commit/d5977c5cf386758fb2d9e56524b05f9549cefe31">htt=
ps://github.com/amCap1712/pljava/commit/d5977c5cf386758fb2d9e56524b05f9549c=
efe31</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Kartik</div></div></=
div>

--00000000000007d65905ad74a163--