Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> I say we keep it simple ...
>
Fine with me.
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> Using that comparison, the place where JEXL excelled was to fill the
> gap that JSP EL had in terms of assignments, method invocations and a
> generally more seamless bridging to Java objects in the expression
> language context. Surrounding procedural Java code took the place of
> the JSP taglib (XML, as you say above) syntax as and when needed.
>
Agreed; the UnifiedJEXL for text nodes & attributes is aiming at this goal
too.
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> Not really a direction per se:
> * We've had some syntactic additions, but its been organic growth
> * We do have a JSR-223 engine for convenience, I think we shouldn't
> go too far with it (no jexl.conf à la JEXL-63 please)
> * Same with Main classes, good for playing around but important to keep
> simple
>
> No coincidence that my latest comment on JEXL-70 contains "The purpose
> of Commons JEXL is to build JEXL, not complex command-line classes to
> use JEXL" (and by way of extension, other such peripheral bits).
>
Ok... sort of. I've yet to understand the inclusion of jsr-223 support
(Scripting language for the java platform) within JEXL; an external
"jexl-script.jar" that implements the factory & the main method would have
made the convenience part clearer.
Imho, the main method in JEXL itself should be a test class in the test
package.
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> I'm happy to keep things the way they are -- no more, no less for 2.0.
>
Thanks for betty crystal clear. :-)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--functional-directions-tp24937743p24953043.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
