OK, got the ".." issue worked out, so here are two more examples:
Ognl -- WebWork -------------------- "[1].name" -- "../name" "[2].name" -- "../../name" "#counter.nextValue" -- "@counter/nextValue" So basically, @ is replaced with # in one example, which is pretty straight forward. The .. stuff is a bit different, but the idea is the basically the same. It says: "search starting from N elements down". -Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Lightbody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > You can find more about the syntax at www.ognl.org, but here are some > examples compared to WebWork: > > Ognl -- WebWork > -------------------- > "name" -- "name" :) > "person.name" -- "person/name" > "map["blah"]" -- "map['blah']" > "array[0]" -- "array[0]" > ???? -- "../name" > > That's about it! Haven't figured out the ".." issue yet. We may need to > extend Ognl's language to add something like this. > > -Pat > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rickard Öberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 3:02 AM > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Ognl as replacement for WW EL > > > > Patrick Lightbody wrote: > > > So the current XWork code uses the existing WW expression language as > is, > > > only using Ognl for setting/getting properties as well as type > conversion. I > > > was playing with making an OgnlValueStack and it's literally 10 lines of > > > code and MUCH faster. I was thinking that between JSTL and Ognl, the > need > > > for the WW EL might be pretty low. As I've stated before, WebWork->XWork > > > migration should be a drop-in replacement, no code changes or > configuration > > > tweaks. So that means the WW EL will still be around, but what do you > guys > > > think of starting to promote Ognl as the query language of choice? > > > > > > The only feature not quite in the OgnlValueStack (and I'm working on > this) > > > is the concept of moving up levels from the stack head via "..". So > asking > > > for "../name" isn;t recognized. Anyway, just throwing the idea out > there. > > > Whatcha think? > > > > Well, personally I think that performance outwins any language feature > > discussions on this one. We've all seen how badly the > > ValueStack.findValue() method performs currently, and that NEEDS to be > > fixed. Do you have a reference for the OGNL syntax? Are there any major > > differences with WW EL? > > > > /Rickard > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
