Re: [Jexl BeanUtils] Why not extend Jexl or beanutils to match same map syntax ?

2005-01-31 Thread Matt Sgarlata
shameless-plug The Morph framework (morph.sourceforge.net) supports either syntax out-of-the box. Morph had its first beta release yesterday. For a comparison of Morph to JEXL, see http://morph.sourceforge.net/alternatives/jexl.html For a comparison of Morph to BeanUtils, see

Re: [Jexl BeanUtils] Why not extend Jexl or beanutils to match same map syntax ?

2005-01-31 Thread marc lan
Matt Sgarlata wrote: shameless-plug The Morph framework (morph.sourceforge.net) supports either syntax out-of-the box. Morph had its first beta release yesterday. For a comparison of Morph to JEXL, see http://morph.sourceforge.net/alternatives/jexl.html For a comparison of Morph to BeanUtils, see

Re: [Jexl BeanUtils] Why not extend Jexl or beanutils to match same map syntax ?

2005-01-31 Thread Dion Gillard
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:25:21 +0100, marc lan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. This message is for jexl and beanutils folks. I'm using both of them, as many people I presume. Both of them share _almost_ the same syntax but for mapped access. Jexl uses square brackets as bean.map[key] and

Re: [Jexl BeanUtils] Why not extend Jexl or beanutils to match same map syntax ?

2005-01-31 Thread Dion Gillard
Seems reasonable. AFAIK, the JSP spec has changed to allow [] or () as well, right? On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:25:21 +0100, marc lan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. This message is for jexl and beanutils folks. I'm using both of them, as many people I presume. Both of them share _almost_ the same

RE: [Jexl BeanUtils] Why not extend Jexl or beanutils to match same map syntax ?

2005-01-31 Thread Hans Gilde
Although... it would be fairly easy to adapt a new scripting language into Jelly. The fairly-simple task of implementing a pluggable language interface has been on the table for a while. I think that Morph would be an interesting candidate for a second language. -Original Message- From: