On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/07/2009, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Henrib<hbies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > After JEXL-60 is reviewed & committed, it seems Jexl-2.0 could reach code
>> > freeze.
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Cool, so (as I just asked in JIRA) you're done with that patch for a bit?
>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> > All 1.1 pending bugs would be fixed, enhancements requests & new features
>> > are in (assignment, ternary operators, UnifiedJEXL, constructor) and
>> > micro-benchmarks seem to indicate better performance (for what it's
>> worth).
>> > Checkstyle is clean, code coverage improved with more tests and the
>> > refactoring that took place should make the code easier to maintain.
>> > Any comments - and especially some committers cycles to review JEXL-60 -
>> > would be very helpfull at this late stage; the patch is "heavy" so is in a
>> > tar.gz form, instructions to apply in JEXL-60.
>>
>> <snap/>
>>
>> Haven't looked at it, but does it also contain docs to address JEXL-43 as
>> well?
>>
>> If not, thats the main remaining pending item for a v2.0 IMO.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Some Jexl-users feedback (from API to doc and real-world perf) would also
>> be
>> > appreciated if anyone interested has time to spare.
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Yes indeed.
>
> Now that the code requires Java 1.5, there are a lot of complaints
> from the Eclipse compiler about Type Safety and Raw Types. I think
> these should ideally be fixed.
>
<snip/>
Agreed (ideally). Some were fixed, any others in non-generated code
may be looked at.
> Findbugs complains:
>
> There is an apparent infinite recursive loop in Interpreter:
>
> public void setAttribute(Object object, Object attribute, Object value) {
> setAttribute(object, attribute, null);
> }
>
> Also complains: forgets to throw the Exception for:
> if (node == null) {
> new UnsupportedOperationException("unable to set object property, "
> + "object:" + object + ", property: " + attribute);
> }
>
> There are some other more minor complaints, e.g. use Byte.valueOf()
> rather than new Byte();
>
<snap/>
Suggest adding this to JEXL-20 -- I know it says checkstyle in the
issue title, but we can take that to mean static analysis for now (or
just commit fixes, if you want).
> Is Jexl 2.0 compliant with BSF 3.0 (JSR-223)?
> If not, it would be useful to add this. I can help with that.
>
<snip/>
What does compliant mean? ISTR contributing a BSF engine based on JEXL
1.x (I think you were also involved, IIRC). I suspect we can do
similar for BSF 3.0 with JEXL 2.0. Help is always welcome.
> The JavaCC generator unforunately generates some rather unsafe code
> (e.g. writable public static String arrays); I don't know if it is
> possible to fix this.
>
<snap/>
Very low priority, atleast for me.
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
