commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henrib <hbies...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jexl] has ExpressionFactory disappeared? (was Re: [GUMP@vmgump]: Project commons-jelly (in module commons-jelly) failed)
Date Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:28:48 GMT

Seems like integer (long versus int in test assertions) from what I could
dig.


sebb-2-2 wrote:
> 
> On 13/09/2009, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/09/2009, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:49 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >  > On 12/09/2009, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >  >> On 12/09/2009, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >  >>  > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Paul Libbrecht
>> <paul@activemath.org> wrote:
>>  >  >>  >  > Hello Jexl developers,
>>  >  >>  >  >
>>  >  >>  >  > has ExpressionFactory disappeared?
>>  >  >>  >  > Did package-names maybe change?
>>  >  >>  >  >
>>  >  >>  >  > I guess I would appreciate to revert that bit, maybe
by
>> explicitly depending
>>  >  >>  >  > on jexl 1?
>>  >  >>  >  >
>>  >  >>  >
>>  >  >>  > <snip/>
>>  >  >>  >
>>  >  >>  >  You could depend on 1.1, yes.
>>  >  >>  >
>>  >  >>  >  As gump is pointing out though, this is one breakage that'll
>> be in
>>  >  >>  >  parts seeing widespread use. On the JEXL side, thinking its
>> best to
>>  >  >>  >  add deprecated Expression/ScriptFactory versions that delegate
>> to the
>>  >  >>  >  JexlEngine API.
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >> +1
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Just noticed that we both agreed to removing these classes - see
>> JEXL-72.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > It looks as though the classes were only deprecated in the 2.0 code
>>  >  > line, so I guess we should not be removing them yet.
>>  >
>>  > <snip/>
>>  >
>>  >  Gump is deftly persuasive -- the cleaner, less redundant API will
>> have
>>  >  to wait. So yes, best to reopen JEXL-72.
>>  >
>>
>>
>> Gump is now happy again.
> 
> Wrote too soon! Although the compilation errors have gone, the test
> suite has some errors (e.g. variables not defined).
> 
>>  The deprecated methods now create a new JEXL engine each time, whereas
>>  previously they shared a static instance of the engine. Is that
>>  reasonable, or should the code try to be closer to the original and
>>  use a shared instance?
> 
> The test errors look as though the Jelly tests may be depending on a
> shared engine. I'll take a look at this shortly.
> 
>>
>>  >  -Rahul
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  >  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
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-GUMP%40vmgump-%3A-Project-commons-jelly-%28in-module-commons-jelly%29-failed-tp25399459p25427936.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