On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Henrib<hbies...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip/> > > > 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. <snap/>
In my mind, its the tradeoff between three additional smallish classes and the complexity of adding a new build artifact -- if you want to look at adding an m2 module for the 223 bits, that'd be fine with me. > Imho, the main method in JEXL itself should be a test class in the test > package. Yeah, OTOH, theres something to be said about having it in the jar (specifically, ease of access). So, this one's for you and sebb to discuss :-) While we're at it, I see little value in the junit package. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
