Adrian Crum wrote:
> On a related note...
>
> The problem Adam tried to fix is one of the problems I have with how the
> scripting language is used. Here are some examples:
>
> <set field="someField" value="${someMap.someElement}"/>
> <set field="someField" from-field="someMap.someElement"/>
>
> Both of those set elements do the same thing. The first example is (in
> my opinion) a hack - it should throw an exception. The value attribute
> should contain a constant value - not an expression.
>
> The specific problem Adam tried to fix was:
>
> <set field="someField" value="${groovy:...}"/>
>
> Again, I believe that use of the set element should throw an exception.
> David suggested adding an attribute to the script element that would
> accept scriptlets (or script fragments). My suggestion is to add a third
> choice to the set element: expression. So, the set element would look
> like this:
>
> <set field="someField" expression="${groovy:...}"/>
>
> To summarize, a field value can be assigned from a constant value, or
> from an existing field, or from an expression. Attempts to hack an
> attribute to make it behave like one of the others results in an exception.
>
> That's my two cents.
I'm still investigating this...
