On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:38 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The first-class Expression object encapsulates the specifics of the > > > implementation (whether it be a String or some Serializable object or > > > whatever). This way, you just code to the commons-expression API > > > (getValue/setValue) rather than carrying around some string. Also, > > > the implementations are free to "compile" their expressions so that > > > they perform better (the MVEL implementation does this and it smokes > > > all of the others in my simple benchmarking, because I can't get OGNL > > > to compile its expression without a "root object" from the beginning). > > > > > <snip/> > > > > Makes sense, its worthwhile to have an opportunity to store compiled forms. > > > > I was just looking at the OGNL API, I'm not sure about the root object > > either. > > > > I really think being able to encapsulate these ideas is beneficial > (and makes this stuff more reusable). Of course, allowing these > things to be serialized is important too (for web components that need > to be stored in the HTTP session such as in Wicket for example). > <snip/>
Understood :-) > I pinged Jesse Kuhnert today to ask him about it (the current API). > He confirmed that it's not currently supported, but I asked if it > could be. > <snap/> Cool, let us know if you get an update. I think on most occassions the EL can deduce the root given an expression and the context, so not having to specify it would be nice. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
