From: "James Strachan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Colebourne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > This is what I was getting at. If DynaBeans were to become used as the > main > > interface (instead of PropertyUtils), then DynaBeans would need to support > > this notation. > > I think DynaBeans is a great abstraction for DynaBeans and regular beans. > DynaBeans can handle > > * regular properties via get(String name) > * indexed properties via get(String name, int index); > * mapped properties via get(String name, String key); > > Where DynaBeans are maybe not the best abstraction right now is for complex > expressions like one.two[3].four(5).
Incidentally, there's an expression language I refer to as JEL (Java Expression Language) - I'm hoping the name catches on like JSTL did ;-). Its used in JSTL, will be native in JSP soon and I think JSF uses it too. Its quite similar to a superset of the expression language currently supported by beanutils. Right now it exists in the JSTL reference implementation over at jakarta-taglibs in the 'standard' taglib and hopefully its gonna move over to jakarta commons sometime soon. When JEL moves over here, we're gonna have a seperate commons component for parsing and evaluating complex expressions on beans, Maps, Lists, arrays (and hopefully DynaBeans too). So maybe its a good idea to consider expression languages as being logically seperate from an 'introspection wrapper'. i.e. that DynaBeans can be used as a great wrapper around introspection while supporting new features like mapped properties and DynaBeans themselves too and that expression languages should be used seperately, either via the API in beanutils right now or the JEL which will arrive here later. Does that sound a reasonable strategy? James _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
