2008/4/13, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So, does anyone have any strong opinions about the name? I am
> thinking that I should just pick one (not "expression") and just go
> with it. If I change the name, I'll likely change the interface names
> to match. Anyone?
What about "commons-e
So, does anyone have any strong opinions about the name? I am
thinking that I should just pick one (not "expression") and just go
with it. If I change the name, I'll likely change the interface names
to match. Anyone?
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 7:22 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:29 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Other interesting ideas:
>
> MethodPath - you're recording a path through objects via methods calls.
> MethodWalker - you're walking a series of method calls.
> Navigator - you're navigating through a graph of objects.
>
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:38 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The first-class Expression object encapsulates the specifics of the
> > > implementation (whether it be a String or some Serializable object o
I was thinking more like a macro in an editor.
On 4/11/08, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Jörg Schaible
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Why not simply call it commons-recorder? See a "CD player"
> > implies that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Jörg Schaible
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Why not simply call it commons-recorder? See a "CD player"
> implies that your can play a CD, but a "CD recorder" implies
> both. Therefore commons-recorder also implies the "play"
> part.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Jörg Schaible
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why not simply call it commons-recorder? See a "CD player" implies that your
> can play a CD, but a "CD recorder" implies both. Therefore commons-recorder
> also implies the "play" part. You use it to record an own exp
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:29 PM, James Carman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hmm, what about "graphmacro"? Have to be careful with
>>> "graph" though: without "object" it may be
>>> interpreted
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The first-class Expression object encapsulates the specifics of the
> > implementation (whether it be a String or some Serializable object or
> > whatever). This way, you just code to the commons-expression API
> > (
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:29 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm, what about "graphmacro"? Have to be careful with
> > "graph" though: without "object" it may be
> > interpreted wrongly. "beanmacro"?
> >
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know about this API. The idea behind [expression] is that
> > > it's not necessarily string-based (a lot of the impls are, but the
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, what about "graphmacro"? Have to be careful with
> "graph" though: without "object" it may be
> interpreted wrongly. "beanmacro"?
>
Other interesting ideas:
MethodPath - you're recording a path through objects via
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without having looked at the code, I'm not
> understanding why [proxy] would be a "first-class"
> dependency. Seems like it would be optional depending
> on whether a client of [expression?] wanted to use the
> recordi
Hmm, what about "graphmacro"? Have to be careful with
"graph" though: without "object" it may be
interpreted wrongly. "beanmacro"?
-Matt
--- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 1:59 PM, James Carman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM
--- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Rahul Akolkar
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know about this API. The idea behind
> [expression] is that
> > > it's not necessarily string-based (a lot of the
> impls are, but the
> > > Javassist on
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 1:59 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM, James Carman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If people feel that [expression] isn't the right name for what I've
> > come up with, I don't really care (as I said, what's in a name). Bu
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If people feel that [expression] isn't the right name for what I've
> come up with, I don't really care (as I said, what's in a name). But,
> the idea of an expression just fit in my mind. I'll try to come up
> with so
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know about this API. The idea behind [expression] is that
> > it's not necessarily string-based (a lot of the impls are, but the
> > Javassist one wouldn't be; it'll probably only be available via
> > build
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:21 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > (1) The proposed API feels like [objectgraphnavigation] rather than
> > [expression], which is an interesting subset of expressions, but
>
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I support this and would like to work on it.
>
That's great! I would love to have some help/input on this.
> Thanks a lot, this is great. I was lost reading the emails in this
> thread but the code has made things
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:18 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:47 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, does anyone object to me putting this code into the sandbox?
No, I support this and would like to work on it.
> > I've
> > got working ve
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:47 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, does anyone object to me putting this code into the sandbox? I've
> got working versions of expressions and builders (with test cases of
> course) for:
>
> MVEL
> OGNL
> BeanUtils
> JXPath
>
If you're interested,
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excuse the top post, but there isn't much context to
> what I want to say.
>
> Beyond what I've already said wrt Morph, its Language
> concept does allow for setting and getting from
> expressions, as do those various libr
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To address the other part of your proposal, James, the
> record/playback mechanism: wouldn't the resulting
> object be a functor a la [functor]? A get would be a
> function, a set a procedure.
>
Yes, they would, and I
Excuse the top post, but there isn't much context to
what I want to say.
Beyond what I've already said wrt Morph, its Language
concept does allow for setting and getting from
expressions, as do those various libraries to which
James plans to interface. But Morph also contains a
Reflector abstract
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that, once you remove the constraint
> of a String representation, that what you are talking
> about is necessarily an "expression". Also given the
> concern I brought up about recording, explicitly
>
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Commons rule is (or at least was) that Commons components should have
> "boring functional names", so Commons Expression would fit, but Commons
> Expresso would not. (Yes, there are some components that do not confor
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:18 AM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Antonio Petrelli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > There is already a regular-expression tool called Expresso:
> > http://www.ultrapico.com/Expresso.htm
> > Come on, James, express your
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that, once you remove the constraint
> of a String representation, that what you are talking
> about is necessarily an "expression". Also given the
> concern I brought up about recording, explicitly
>
2008/4/9, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 09/04/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Antonio Petrelli
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is already a regular-expression tool called Expresso:
> > > http://www.ultrapico.com/Expresso.h
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, to clarify, Morph isn't "mine." Matt
> Sgarlata is the primary developer; I just came in
> midway and started helping out (at least I like to
> think my input has been helpful)... then, I wasn't
> necessarily
--- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Antonio Petrelli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > There is already a regular-expression tool called
> Expresso:
> > http://www.ultrapico.com/Expresso.htm
> > Come on, James, express yourself better :-D
>
> Than
On 09/04/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Antonio Petrelli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > There is already a regular-expression tool called Expresso:
> > http://www.ultrapico.com/Expresso.htm
> > Come on, James, express yourself better :
--- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wanted to start up a discussion about maybe
> starting a new sandbox
> project for expression abstraction. It could be
> named
> commons-expresso. I realize that there's a J2EE
> framework out there
> called "Expresso", but its site hasn't been up
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Antonio Petrelli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There is already a regular-expression tool called Expresso:
> http://www.ultrapico.com/Expresso.htm
> Come on, James, express yourself better :-D
Thanks, Antonio. :) Ok, I googled only shortly to look for somethi
2008/4/9, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I realize that there's a J2EE framework out there
> called "Expresso", but its site hasn't been updated since 2005, so I
> don't know how active it is or if this would even be a conflict
> anyway.
There is already a regular-expression tool called E
I wanted to start up a discussion about maybe starting a new sandbox
project for expression abstraction. It could be named
commons-expresso. I realize that there's a J2EE framework out there
called "Expresso", but its site hasn't been updated since 2005, so I
don't know how active it is or if thi
37 matches
Mail list logo
