commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] New Expressions Sandbox Project...
Date Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:47:44 GMT
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Matt Benson <> 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 libraries to which
>  James plans to interface.  But Morph also contains a
>  Reflector abstraction, which I have suggested is
>  suited to be a discrete Commons component.  Morph
>  implements a Language with a Reflector.  The only
>  difference between the two is that a Reflector is
>  intended to set/get a property exactly one level
>  removed from the source object.  Perhaps that is an
>  unnecessary distinction and the [expression] idea is
>  really another way of expressing the need for generic
>  reflectors that can get/set a -possibly nested-
>  property given a root object (BeanUtils and Spring
>  have also implemented this basic requirement as well).
>   I don't think this POV invalidates Morph's existing
>  single-level Reflectors, nor do I see any real
>  conflict with "complex" Reflectors being dependent on
>  "simple" Reflectors.
>  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.

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:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message