Hi, the scripting example is not in core, but in examples/scripting, the
same place it's always been.
What I added to core were 2 simple transformers and 1 simple component
(StringToNumber, SimpleMathTransformer, AccumulatorComponent) which
seemed like they may be generally useful to have and I specifically made
them nice and generic (and documented). They have nothing to do with
scripting.
Note that we already have many simple transformers and components in
core:
StringAppendTransformer, StringToObjectArray, HexStringToByteArray,
Base64Encoder, GZipCompressTransformer
StaticComponent, EchoComponent, LogComponent
The ones I added didn't seem any less generic than those, but if
everyone thinks it's a bad idea, I will remove them.
Alternatively, we could split out a new module called
"mule-module-basic" or something like that which has all these basic
constructs in it, thereby reducing the size of mule-core itself.
Travis
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:12 -0400, Andrew Perepelytsya wrote:
> Guys,
>
> There was a new scripting example added recently in 2.0.x. The
> question I have (also raised by Ross earlier) is why is it in the
> core? I think every new transformer it added could've been easily kept
> isolated to the example, and new xsd schema elements shouldn't have
> been added to the mule.xsd, but rather a namespace of its own (would
> be a good demo too).
>
> Comments?
> Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
