Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I have found Jexl to be valuable for processing expressions. However,
> I haven't come across the need for another scripting language.
> Typically, I've used Jexl in programs where I want to allow
> complicated expressions with some sort of configuration such as in
> Cocoon's sitemap or in commons configuration. If Jexl is going to
> support scripting is it possible to split that into a separate jar?
>
> Ralph
>
>
Thanks for the feedback Ralph.
Just for clarity, JEXL will continue to be usable as an EL; scripting
capabilities come on top of those.
One of the possible usage for more scripting capabilities - when used in XML
based situations - would be to generate/execute scripts instead of
"interpreting" nodes (Jelly like?). And/or an easier integration glue
between declarative (XML) and procedural (Java) worlds; iterate over nodes
in the script, create objects based on EL attributes & store them in Java
objects.
As for separate jars, I dont know; what would be the motivation?
I can see jar size but we are talking 144Kb (jexl-1.1) versus 198Kb
(jexl-2.0 trunk as is); a reduced grammar might shove say 20/30Kb and a
fuller one would add about the same. Not sure that's enough of a difference.
And the technical hurdle of splitting the javacc grammar and still have the
"EL" as a sub-part of the "Script" would most likely mean have the full
syntax in EL but generate "parsing" errors when used (that's way easier than
2 jjt files with one dependant upon the other...).
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--functional-directions-tp24937743p24943436.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
