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-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
