commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] New Expressions Sandbox Project...
Date Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:30:36 GMT
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@yahoo.com> 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 suggesting that new work on the expression
>  concept should go into Morph, either.
I apologize.  I thought the project was yours.  My mistake.

>  This would qualify as one of the built-in expression
>  "engines" I mentioned before, really.  So... you're
>  suggesting that _most_ of the "expression factory"
>  implementations supported by this proposition would be
>  built from Strings, but that it wouldn't necessarily
>  be so all the time?  How are you intending your
>  recordable implementation to be able to handle set vs.
>  get operations, though?  I don't get that from your
>  example.
>

Yes, most of them would be based on Strings (we'd probably have a
superclass for string-based expressions).  But, Javassist would
actually generate a class at runtime to evaluate the expression.  As
for how we provide "set" operations, the "recorder" basically records
what you have done, what methods you called and their parameters.
Then, the builder looks at that information and figures out how to
build up the expression so that it's "settable."  Ognl provides this
sort of thing out of the box (see the Ognl.setValue method I think
it's called); the string basically points to a value and you can use
that string to set/get either way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message