Or both: the classname and extension type(s) should be added to Languages.properties (*) in BSF, and the implementation included in the JEXL jar.
(*) If BSF allows for scanning additional property files, that would not be essential. S. On 10/11/2007, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So should this go in BSF or Jexl? > > On 11/10/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/10/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 11/9/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Are there any plans to add a BSF wrapper to JEXL? > > > > > > > <snip/> > > > > > > At some point (well over a year ago, before v1.1), I had one for some > > > prototyping I was doing. I never intended to put it anywhere, but if > > > there is interest, we can polish it and propose it for addition (in > > > JEXL or BSF, TBD). Let me dig it up first. > > > > > <snip/> > > > > Posted here [1]. JDK 1.4, JEXL 1.1 (just added script stuff). Though I > > think o.a.bsf.engines.jexl might even be a better choice for package. > > > > -Rahul > > > > [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JEXL-39 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > dIon Gillard > Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
