Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 10:46:14 -0800 (PST)
From: henrib <henrib@apache.org>
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Message-ID: <1323024374938-4157664.post@n4.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOGo0VaApRo9DHfRgNWCe2tn1wEky0nhmdFJ_4zrg2aL1emGPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOGo0VaApRo9DHfRgNWCe2tn1wEky0nhmdFJ_4zrg2aL1emGPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [JEXL] Are users likely to implement the Script interface?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


sebb-2-2 wrote
> 
> Don't know if this is an indication that the unit tests are incomplete
> or that there is not really a use case for implementing the interface,
> (other than the implementations which are already supplied.)
> 
I don't think anyone would implement the Script interface without deriving /
delegating to an ExpressionImpl which is internal (by transitivity from the
protected ASTJexlScript member); so it'b be someone trying to extend Jexl
capabilities.
Jexl being usually featured and used as a glue / joint, JEXL Scripts are
usually used as classes members thus implementing Script is very unlikely.
I've been working on a redesign of the API for a potential V3 - a fresh and
clean API made to be stable but breaking free from the "ancient" Velocity
ties - and moved the ExpressionImpl equivalent to an internal package; I'll
commit soon in the trunk, tests ok, Checkstyle stuff remains mainly.
Cheers,
Henrib


--
View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/JEXL-Are-users-likely-to-implement-the-Script-interface-tp4157600p4157664.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