commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Akolkar <>
Subject Re: [dbcp] [JEXL 2.0] o.a.c.jexl or o.a.c.jexl2 ?
Date Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:55:57 GMT
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM, henrib <> wrote:
> Any other opinion ?
> Sebb, Rahul, what's your take ?

I agree with your comments about compatibility for casual users. In
effect, some Commons components (those we've sometimes characterized
as ones with narrow deep APIs, such as JEXL) almost have a two-part
public API -- one that suffices ~80% of use cases and another that
only a minority will employ for more sophisticated usages.

Given the divergence is in the so-called more sophisticated usage APIs
between the 1.x and the 2.x lines, I think there are much fewer
occasions to encounter jar hell but the possibility exists. There is a
reasonable number of said changes between the two lines which also
adds up when forming an opinion.

Therefore, assuming other aspects of the release are good, my
inclination is to say I'd be +1 for a release as oac.jexl2 and +0 for
a release as oac.jexl (i.e. neither voting for nor against, which
won't help the vote outcome much :-).


> Thanks
> Henrib
> Henrib-2 wrote:
>> One (non Maven related) question for the JEXL community:
>> The (soon-to-be published) JEXL-2.0 RCx version comes with a lot of
>> changes. The upper level API deprecates ExpressionFactory & ScriptFactory
>> - replaced by JexlEngine -, Expression methods that used to throw
>> exceptions (ParseException, Exception) throw unchecked exceptions and the
>> inner level classes (o.a.c.{util,introspection,etc}) have to many changes
>> to be listed.
>> Upper level API code compatibility has been checked through Jelly and more
>> recently through Commons Configuration; 1.1 behavior seems preserved
>> enough for the switch to JEXL-2.0 to be one compilation away.
>> However, with so many changes and not so many checks, it may be preferable
>> to be on the safe side and put the whole JEXL-2.0 into
>> org.apache.commons.jexl2; this would allow 1.1 dependant code to continue
>> living its merry way (OSGi non withstanding) and let switchers decide when
>> to actually perform the switch.
>> We need your opinions and options; let us know.
>> Cheers
>> Henrib

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message