oh yeah, this would definitely go into another branch. I am almost
done with it, I am adding more tests.
musachy
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Rene Gielen wrote:
> Great stuff!
>
> wouldn't that be a good topic for the XW/S 2.2 branches discussed lately?
>
> Musachy Barroso schrieb:
>> Not y
Great stuff!
wouldn't that be a good topic for the XW/S 2.2 branches discussed lately?
Musachy Barroso schrieb:
> Not yet, the MVEL stuff is pretty much a draft at this moment. We
> could roll this in 2 steps, first stop using OGNL for parameter
> binding, and then, plugin MVEL. After #1 is achie
Not yet, the MVEL stuff is pretty much a draft at this moment. We
could roll this in 2 steps, first stop using OGNL for parameter
binding, and then, plugin MVEL. After #1 is achieve, #2 should be
easy. The good thing is that the new parameter binding implementation
can be turned on/off with a const
Musachy,
Great stuff! Is the new implementation using ScriptEngine (JSR 223) in
some way? Both OGNL and MVEL have a ScriptEngineFactory
implementation, and many other scripting languages do, maximal
decoupling.
Regards,
Mathias
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> Every a
Every attempt to replace OGNL by another EL library hits a big wall
because of the tight integration between xwork and OGNL. The biggest
problem comes from the "magical" instantiation of null objects in
expressions, and type conversion (applied together). This magic
instantiation is only used duri
