On 30/07/2009, Henrib <hbies...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks again for the explanation. > > Just one question: are we "exposing" Jexl or UnifiedJEXL ? (or both)
The code I'm working on currently uses JexlEngine (whatever that represents). It would be possible to add another factory implementation, provided that it had a different language name and default extension. Or the JexlScriptEngine could be sensitive to particular variables in the context. > BTW, just a stupid thought about logging (versus usage of a Writer - > ScriptContext.setErrorWriter), I guess we could use a simple Log > implementation that wraps the error Writer and pass it down to Jexl if we > want to be more faithfull to the jsr-223 API intent in this respect (if this > is what you had in mind a couple of message ago). Perhaps; not sure how this would work for non-JSR-223 usage though. > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--2.0-and-BSF---JSR-223-tp24706519p24734383.html > > Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
