commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [JEXL] functional directions
Date Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:16:07 GMT
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Henrib<hbiestro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
<snip/>

Understood, thanks for starting this discussion about project direction.


>
> 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.
>
<snap/>

OK.


>
> Besides, +1 in moving the junit package.
<snip/>

I've created JEXL-84 for 2.0 as there seems to be consensus on this:

  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JEXL-84

-Rahul

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


Mime
View raw message