Putting down my work would only motivate me more. :)  That's exactly
how this was started back in February--Chris Brock was bragging about
how superior MVEL was and how slow OGNL was.  Well, we'll show him!
Tom

On 11/7/07, Ian Roughley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's great that Tom is doing this work, and it wasn't my intent to put
> down the effort.  I guess I was just trying to preempt given some of the
> OGNL threads.
>
> /Ian
>
> Tom Schneider wrote:
> > LOL, I didn't know my efforts were going to cause such a raucous. :)
> >
> > Ted is correct--I started this on Saturday on a whim.  At this point
> > it is completely experimental--we have a long ways to go before it is
> > even close to usable.  However, I was able to execute a simple
> > expression using my value stack, which for me, was a worthwhile
> > accomplishment.  I didn't want Don's work to abstract away the value
> > stack to be completely wasted, we needed at least one other value
> > stack implementation to truly test his changes.  Don did good work,
> > but there is still a lot of OGNLisms that have crept into the code
> > over time.  It would be nice to find and eliminate these
> >
> > Ian brings up a good point in that we'll have to decide how to handle
> > some things like I18N/type conversion/method invocation.  Not all EL's
> > are created equal and OGNL probably is a little more flexible and
> > powerful than most.  Then even if we get all that working, what's the
> > migration strategy?
> > Tom
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to