Right, that's exactly the change. The default behavior is to use the static instance of Uberspect. I just have the m_uberspect member of HashMapContext call Introspector.getUberspect().
I understand that my next step is to do some testing (adding the appropriate test case or cases) and produce a patch? Doug Tim OBrien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/19/2006 10:14 AM Please respond to "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[email protected]> To Jakarta Commons Developers List <[email protected]> cc Subject Re: [JEXL] Validate plugin Uberspec approach So, in a class like ASTArrayAccess, you are talking about changing a call like this: VelPropertyGet vg = Introspector.getUberspect().getPropertyGet(o, s, DUMMY); To something like, VelPropertyGet vg = jexlContext.getIntrospector().getUberspect().... Seems reasonable, but you might want to preserve the default static instance of Uberspect on Introspector for continuity. Tim --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > It looks like the simplest place to provide a plugin mechanism in JEXL is > via the JexlContext object. My reasoning is that this object is passed > along everywhere that evaluation occurs, and would allow two different > users of JEXL within the same JVM to use different Uberspec objects. > > I wouldn't mind comments from the current contributor/committers for JEXL. > > Thanks, > Doug > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
