On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Excuse the top post, but there isn't much context to > what I want to say. > > Beyond what I've already said wrt Morph, its Language > concept does allow for setting and getting from > expressions, as do those various libraries to which > James plans to interface. But Morph also contains a > Reflector abstraction, which I have suggested is > suited to be a discrete Commons component. Morph > implements a Language with a Reflector. The only > difference between the two is that a Reflector is > intended to set/get a property exactly one level > removed from the source object. Perhaps that is an > unnecessary distinction and the [expression] idea is > really another way of expressing the need for generic > reflectors that can get/set a -possibly nested- > property given a root object (BeanUtils and Spring > have also implemented this basic requirement as well). > I don't think this POV invalidates Morph's existing > single-level Reflectors, nor do I see any real > conflict with "complex" Reflectors being dependent on > "simple" Reflectors. > > To address the other part of your proposal, James, the > record/playback mechanism: wouldn't the resulting > object be a functor a la [functor]? A get would be a > function, a set a procedure. >
So, does anyone object to me putting this code into the sandbox? I've got working versions of expressions and builders (with test cases of course) for: MVEL OGNL BeanUtils JXPath --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
