[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JEXL-102?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12869643#action_12869643
]
Sebb commented on JEXL-102:
---------------------------
I'm not trying to "solve" the BSF (actually JSR-223) problem, merely to provide
more options for users if they do need both factories on the classpath.
And I'm not suggesting dropping the existing names, merely adding some new
ones. They don't have to be used.
Afaik, the JEXL 1 code does not provide its own factory so one has to rely on a
third party provider.
They might decide to use the same names as JEXL2 currently does.
It is highly unlikely that they would use Jexl2 as a supported name.
I did consider whether to suggest ".jexl2" as an extension, but decided that
was probably unnecessary if jexl2 was added as a name.
But we could add both. I don't think it is sensible to add .jexl2 as an
extension without also adding it as a name.
> Add "jexl2" as a supported name
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: JEXL-102
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JEXL-102
> Project: Commons JEXL
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Affects Versions: 2.0.1
> Reporter: Sebb
>
> Might be useful to add "jexl2" (and possibly other variants) as a supported
> script engine name to make it easier to select JEXL 2 when both JEXL1 and
> JEXL2 are available.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
