commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henrib <>
Subject Re: [JEXL] functional directions
Date Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:50:39 GMT

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.
As long as it does not imply we expect JEXL to become more than an EL - aka
become another "full-fledge" scripting engine, there is no further potential
argument. I just felt it was better to state the project direction than let
it be subject to interpretation; JEXL is geared at excelling as an EL
language - period.

Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> Yeah, OTOH, theres something to be said about having it in the jar
> (specifically, ease of access).
> ...
> While we're at it, I see little value in the junit package.
I get it; as long as the community agrees upon it and this is only
convenience and nothing more - nor further-, all my previous remarks are
moot points. I just felt the need for a clear and unambiguous direction to

Besides, +1 in moving the junit package.
View this message in context:
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at

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

View raw message