On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:21 PM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/07/2009, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Although Jexl 2.0 works OK currently with Apache BSF 3.0, it relies on >> > the factory & engine provided by BSF 3.0. >> > >> > Now Java 1.6 has scripting built-in, so I think it would make sense to >> > include the necessary classes and property file in Jexl. This would >> > allow it to be used without the BSF jar. >> > >> >> <snip/> >> >> Right, JEXL shouldn't have additional dependencies (even optional) but >> javax.script is almost part of the JDK (we are at JDK 1.5, but thats >> OK IMO). > > JEXL does currently require commons-logging (non-optional). > <snip/>
Yeah, to clarify -- by additional I meant more than the deps today. > I'm not sure how useful the logging is - should it be kept? > Could it be made optional at run-time? > <snap/> I've found it useful. Its now possible to control whether to log or throw on error conditions (and IIRC, we don't log much beyond error conditions). -Rahul >> >> > It should still work with the BSF jar as well - BeanShell takes a >> > similar approach and works OK for me with BSF 3.0 or Java 1.6. >> > >> > I'll have a look at providing these classes shortly. >> >> >> >> Cool. >> >> -Rahul >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
