-
1. Re: Is it time to write Arquillian 2.0 using Ceylon instead of Java?
aslak Nov 21, 2013 7:04 AM (in response to kpiwko)It's an interesting idea, tho my main concern is 'dragging the Ceylon SDK' with us every where to run..
> If Arquillian 2.0 is written in Ceylon, we could get:
> * Some nice features for writing Core itself from Ceylon languages - lambda
Sure, we could get some sugar, but also eliminate anything pre 1.7 jvm
> * Generate Java code
yeah, but we still need the Ceylon SDK.
> * Generated JavaScript code
True, but what would we do with Arq Core in JS?
I can see parts of a client running in JS communicating with a backend, or possible JS running on the JVM...
Unless you're just talking about Arquillian Core, and having a general test middleware for JS as we have for Java.
> * Arquillian Support in Ceylon
We should in theory already support this today, as they both run on the JVM.
> * some help from Ceylon team?
More help is always good
> However, by single code base there would be a support for 3 languages.
We're basically just supporting 2 runtimes(languages) pr say. Ceylon/Java is the same thing.
-
2. Re: Is it time to write Arquillian 2.0 using Ceylon instead of Java?
kpiwko Nov 25, 2013 3:56 AM (in response to aslak)It's an interesting idea, tho my main concern is 'dragging the Ceylon SDK' with us every where to run..
> If Arquillian 2.0 is written in Ceylon, we could get:
> * Some nice features for writing Core itself from Ceylon languages - lambda
Sure, we could get some sugar, but also eliminate anything pre 1.7 jvm
Ah, I missed the point that Ceylon requires JRE7. This is probably the biggest problem imo.
> * Generate Java code
yeah, but we still need the Ceylon SDK.
Well, if we are going to use JBoss Modules, JBoss Modules + Ceylon SDK should not be that much overhead.
> * Generated JavaScript code
True, but what would we do with Arq Core in JS?
I can see parts of a client running in JS communicating with a backend, or possible JS running on the JVM...
Unless you're just talking about Arquillian Core, and having a general test middleware for JS as we have for Java.
There are plenty of options. The main point is to be able to write tests directly in JavaScript, while keeping Arquillian Starting containers etc.
We could support Node.js as an container with JavaScript deployment or JavaScript tests for iOS, where we could use iOS simulator .
The point here is that Java Language starts to be limiting point for non Java users but maintaining too much code in JavaScript is a difficult task.
> * Arquillian Support in Ceylon
We should in theory already support this today, as they both run on the JVM.
I like "in theory" part :-)
> * some help from Ceylon team?
More help is always good
Agreed. :-)