MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAASLQ4Mva7dAXiS_c9OLhV4VzNHF=XNKJosuS5gtZTB6b4TW1Q@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>
 <CAASLQ4NGoruXs1+fNsXnsic7cRjqceJ-PiYofG-OMPUWnxDjWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5F4172F9.4060608@anastigmatix.net> <5F417C68.50702@anastigmatix.net>
 <CAASLQ4NxaNzZR19dFY6CL80Yz+ntN=LGdRfsX0bOJ_aLKoM-QA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAASLQ4NxaNzZR19dFY6CL80Yz+ntN=LGdRfsX0bOJ_aLKoM-QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kartik Ohri <kartikohri13@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 02:03:48 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAASLQ4OKjEtjKq3TmqK9D+QbdZSw08CSp8X5wRUaZfjNUOLEtA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: the ScriptingMojo
To: Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>
Cc: pljava-dev@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f63a7705ad7d4578"
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000f63a7705ad7d4578
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>
> "Thing" as a class name is just proof-of-concept of course. :) I had
>> been wondering earlier if it might be useful to make PGXSUtils
>> instantiable
>> and bind an instance of it into the script; its constructor could take the
>> MavenProject and Log and those wouldn't have to be passed around as much.
>> It would still be possible to bind selected methods of it directly with
>> names of their own for convenience, but other methods could just be
>> accessible as utils.method() and I think that would solve this casting
>> issue.
>>
>
Regarding this, which methods should be bound by their own names ? Should I
keep the current list of methods and just add an instance of the PGXSUtils
to the script or should I remove the existing bindings ?

--000000000000f63a7705ad7d4578
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"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px sol=
id rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">&quot;Thing&quot; as a class name is =
just proof-of-concept of course. :) I had<br>
been wondering earlier if it might be useful to make PGXSUtils instantiable=
<br>
and bind an instance of it into the script; its constructor could take the<=
br>
MavenProject and Log and those wouldn&#39;t have to be passed around as muc=
h.<br>
It would still be possible to bind selected methods of it directly with<br>
names of their own for convenience, but other methods could just be<br>
accessible as utils.method() and I think that would solve this casting<br>
issue.<br></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Regardi=
ng this, which methods should be bound by their own names ? Should I keep t=
he current list of methods and just add an instance of the PGXSUtils to the=
 script or should I remove the existing bindings ?=C2=A0</div></div></div>

--000000000000f63a7705ad7d4578--