struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com>
Subject Re: [SUNDAY] Struts 2 and EL
Date Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:13:56 GMT
I would say the reason you don't want to dive into 233 would be  
primarily because of performance. You'd either need to have a compiled  
statement cache or pre-compile. Most of the scripting frameworks that  
comply with 233 are full blow languages (Groovy, JavaScript, etc) and  
have pretty slow parsers compared to EL parsers out there. You could  
give them a try and see, but I would guess you would see a large drop  
in performance using them. I personally think MVEL is one of the  
better ways to go once they finish some of the new features they have  
in mind for the next version (i.e. annotations and such).

Or just write your own. I wrote one for JCatapult and it took about a  
day. It isn't as fast as MVEL, but it works fine for what I need and  
it doesn't mean it can't be improved on. The primary reason I did that  
exercise was to fully support 1.5 and generics as well as provide a  
better type conversion API with annotation support. The way I wrote it  
you can specify additional attributes using the taglibs or via an  
annotation that tell the API how to convert Strings to things like  
Money, dates, and JODA classes.

-bp


On Jul 5, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:

> After fighting OGNL and MVEL for a while I've got to the conclusion
> that they aren't the best horses to bet my money on, some of the
> reasons are not even technical so I won't go into them. So I have been
> playing with a new idea, why should we couple struts to an EL, when we
> can use JSR 223 (Scripting for the Java platform, some docs here:
> http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/J2SE/Desktop/scripting/) 
> ,
> and just make Struts EL agnostic? I know security would be a concern,
> but at least we got standard ways to limit what these scripts can do
> or not. it would be very cool if I could just set
>
> <constant name="struts.scriptEngine" value="groovy" />
>
> and then just use all of groovy's cool stuff in the tags. So if people
> can just pick their favorite engine, instead of being stuck with our
> supported implementation. What do you think?
>
> musachy
> -- 
> "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>


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


Mime
View raw message