commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henrib <hbies...@gmail.com>
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
emerge.

Besides, +1 in moving the junit package.
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--functional-directions-tp24937743p24972053.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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


Mime
View raw message