commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: [JEXL] functional directions
Date Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:59:18 GMT
I have found Jexl to be valuable for processing expressions. However,  
I haven't come across the need for another scripting language.  
Typically, I've used Jexl in programs where I want to allow  
complicated expressions with some sort of configuration such as in  
Cocoon's sitemap or in commons configuration. If Jexl is going to  
support scripting is it possible to split that into a separate jar?

Ralph

On Aug 12, 2009, at 7:29 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.
>
> I've been using JEXL 1.1 as an "expression language" (like the JSP/ 
> JSF one),
> a tiny syntax that would only evaluate simple expressions; the if,  
> loop
> constructs and blocks -{...}- are already "too much" in this view. In
> JSPs/taglibs, all these are handled through "XML" syntaxes - if you  
> allow me
> this shortcut.
>
> Going towards a "scripting language" seems to be our current  
> direction (the
> previously cited syntactic elements, JSR-233 support, main methods).  
> At the
> current rate if this is any indication, the 'jar' size will be 50%  
> bigger
> than 1.1 soon and JEXL will indeed become a scripting language  
> close(r) to
> JavaScript/ECMAScript & friends.
>
> So, just as a sanity check and to ensure the choice is explicit,  
> should JEXL
> "restrict" itself to a simple EL or "augment" itself towards a  
> (simplified)
> ECMAscript ? In the former case, it {c,sh}ould mean removing every  
> syntax
> that can use a block (loops, if, etc.); in the latter, we'll  
> probably need
> local variables, functions & return, loop enhancements (continue,  
> break).
> That'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: http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--functional-directions-tp24937743p24937743.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
>


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


Mime
View raw message