On Nov 6, 2007 12:37 PM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At this point, JUEL is just something Tom committed to the sandbox, > like yesterday (literally). We aren't sending any messages to anyone > else, since I doubt that many of us have had a chance to look at it > ourselves yet. > > If JUEL turns out to be too much work, then none of us will use it > ourselves, and it will simply wither away. > > The general idea is that we are building the framework that we want to > use, and then sharing the wealth with others. But, Job 1 is that it > has to be the framework that *we* want to use. Evidentially, Tom > thinks he might want to use a framework that supports JUEL. The next > question is whether anyone else feels the same way. >
I absolutely agree, and I have to say that I'm definitely in the JSP EL/JUEL camp. OGNL is too verbose (and exposes too much), in my not-so-humble opinion. So with that in mind, I'm not looking for the ability to change between EL processors without making any changes to code, I'm hoping for the ability to choose the right tool for the job I have at hand. For that matter, if we generify all the EL implementations to have the same syntax and capabilities, why would we need more than one? The beauty is in the choice. (*Chris*) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
