On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Henrib wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
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.htm
On 13/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Henrib wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Henrib wrote:
>
>
> 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
Thanks for being crystal clear. :-)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--functional-directions-tp24937743p24953662.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To
ld 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.nabb
EL but generate "parsing" errors when used (that's way easier than
2 jjt files with one dependant upon the other...).
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--functional-directions-tp24937743p24943436.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabb
I say we keep it simple ...
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Henrib wrote:
>
> I was implementing local variables & functions support when I realized it'd
> be best to ask the community what they seek in JEXL before crossing this
> boundary.
>
Glad you asked :-)
> I've been using JEXL 1.1 as
at's provocative but you get the idea. :-)
Are there functional needs that you expect JEXL to cover ? Are there
constraints that would make any other scripting language - on the
JVM - non
usable (complexity, size, ...)?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Henrib
--
View this message in context:
mplexity, size, ...)?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Henrib
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--functional-directions-tp24937743p24937743.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
10 matches
Mail list logo
