Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> 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.
>
As long as it does not imply we expect JEXL to become more than an EL - aka
become another "full-fledge" scripting engine, there is no further potential
argument. I just felt it was better to state the project direction than let
it be subject to interpretation; JEXL is geared at excelling as an EL
language - period.
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> Yeah, OTOH, theres something to be said about having it in the jar
> (specifically, ease of access).
> ...
> While we're at it, I see little value in the junit package.
>
I get it; as long as the community agrees upon it and this is only
convenience and nothing more - nor further-, all my previous remarks are
moot points. I just felt the need for a clear and unambiguous direction to
emerge.
Besides, +1 in moving the junit package.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--functional-directions-tp24937743p24972053.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
