sebb-2-2 wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Right, both options have respective merits.
UnifiedJEXL having a different syntax (the ${} #{}), a different factory
might reduce the potential element of surprise. But since UnifiedJEXL is
just an augmentation of Jexl, it might be overkill since as a dev using it,
you probably know which set of features you want to use.
I dont know if there is a use-case for using both at the same time.
sebb-2-2 wrote:
>
> Perhaps; not sure how this would work for non-JSR-223 usage though.
>
For non JSR-233, we would regular commons.LogFactory created logger; when
JSR-233 is in use, we would pass down that specific error writer "wrapping"
instance (although I dont know if we've got enough flexibility for each
ScriptContext to pass its own). As I said, it might be a stupid / irrelevant
idea.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--2.0-and-BSF---JSR-223-tp24706519p24735171.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
