On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Henrib<hbies...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> >> In my mind, its the tradeoff between three additional smallish classes >> and the complexity of adding a new build artifact -- if you want to >> look at adding an m2 module for the 223 bits, that'd be fine with me. >> > As long as it does not imply we expect JEXL to become more than an EL - aka > become another "full-fledge" scripting engine, there is no further potential > argument. I just felt it was better to state the project direction than let > it be subject to interpretation; JEXL is geared at excelling as an EL > language - period. > <snip/>
Understood, thanks for starting this discussion about project direction. > > Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> >> Yeah, OTOH, theres something to be said about having it in the jar >> (specifically, ease of access). >> ... >> While we're at it, I see little value in the junit package. >> > I get it; as long as the community agrees upon it and this is only > convenience and nothing more - nor further-, all my previous remarks are > moot points. I just felt the need for a clear and unambiguous direction to > emerge. > <snap/> OK. > > Besides, +1 in moving the junit package. <snip/> I've created JEXL-84 for 2.0 as there seems to be consensus on this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JEXL-84 -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
