commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@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 12:57:34 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message