Why he thinks it would be bad to depend on Jelly? So far, there hasn't
been a good case as to how it could benefit xwork/webwork, and even if it
did add a little, we try to keep dependencies to a minimum. A bunch of
dependencies is too jakarta-ish, as someone put it.
--Erik
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003,
My initial inkling was to have Jexl as a possible replacement to the current
EL, but looking deeper into OGNL convinces me that it doesn't match up in terms
of functionality.
Something interesting, though, is Jelly's support for multiple expression
languages...
quote
Jelly has native support for
Because every dependency is just that: a dependency. Extra complexity is
bad. Installing a package sounds simple, and IMO should be simple; if
installing webwork is actually installing webwork, xwork,
commons-logging, ognl, then configuring, then writing actions, then
debugging there's a
Thoughts from the master (FYI). I don't really have an opinion either way on
Jelly, other than thinking it is very cool and useful. There's no reason it
couldn't be _another_ view option if people wanted it that way.
-- Forwarded Message
From: James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 8 Feb
Another view option with our existing EL then :)
-- Forwarded Message
From: James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:30:30 -
To: Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Commons Jelly
FWIW, you could drop in OGNL (or indeed any expression language)
I have to disagree with Hani here. I think Jelly looks cool. I agree
that the Jakarta projects tend to be overly interconnected, but this
doesn't seem too bad.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cannon-Brookes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 7:06 PM
To:
Well, if someone wants to write a view layer for Jelly, I'll add it in.
Jelly would, of course, be in lib/optional, not lib/core.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003
Cameron,
The components stuff is very cool, but it still has a lot of work to be done
as well. As for why the parameter is called component, that's because both
components and objects go through the initialization process. That means
that you Action could implement FooAware, which gives Action a
Yep, very very useful
On Sunday, February 9, 2003, at 01:15 AM, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
I think this is the best feature I've seen in WW2 - I would use it
instantly
in about 50 places :)
-mike
On 9/2/03 4:56 PM, Patrick Lightbody ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
Just put in a dinky
