On 12/09/2009, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:49 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12/09/2009, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/09/2009, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Paul Libbrecht <p...@activemath.org> > wrote: > >> > > Hello Jexl developers, > >> > > > >> > > has ExpressionFactory disappeared? > >> > > Did package-names maybe change? > >> > > > >> > > I guess I would appreciate to revert that bit, maybe by explicitly > depending > >> > > on jexl 1? > >> > > > >> > > >> > <snip/> > >> > > >> > You could depend on 1.1, yes. > >> > > >> > As gump is pointing out though, this is one breakage that'll be in > >> > parts seeing widespread use. On the JEXL side, thinking its best to > >> > add deprecated Expression/ScriptFactory versions that delegate to the > >> > JexlEngine API. > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > > > > Just noticed that we both agreed to removing these classes - see JEXL-72. > > > > It looks as though the classes were only deprecated in the 2.0 code > > line, so I guess we should not be removing them yet. > > <snip/> > > Gump is deftly persuasive -- the cleaner, less redundant API will have > to wait. So yes, best to reopen JEXL-72. >
Gump is now happy again. The deprecated methods now create a new JEXL engine each time, whereas previously they shared a static instance of the engine. Is that reasonable, or should the code try to be closer to the original and use a shared instance? > -Rahul > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
