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]
