>
> "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 ?