Re: [Springframework-developer] java.util.Map fields and commons validator

[<jue...@we...>]

On reflection, I agree: Introducing alternative "(" syntax would =
probably cause more harm than benefit in the long term. I'll leave the =
current syntax as-is.
=20
Juergen
=20

________________________________

Von: spr...@li... im Auftrag =
von Peter den Haan
Gesendet: Mi 14.04.2004 21:11
An: spr...@li...
Betreff: Re: [lists] Re: [Springframework-developer] java.util.Map =
fields and commons validator



Colin Sampaleanu wrote:

> The existing spring approach is also similar to OGNL. In OGNL, '(' is
> used for an actual method call [...] It would make the validation =
usage
> a bit more similar to commons-validator/struts, but would muddy the
> water for general expression syntax.

Indeed; at some point we might want to support OGNL-like method =
invocations
and we would have made the expression language a lot more difficult to
parse, implement and also to read. Of course the JSP EL also supports
function invocations, using the foo:bar() syntax. Supporting a =
property(foo)
syntax might end up being a liability rather than an asset.

 - Peter



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D1470&alloc_id=3D3638&op=3Dcli=
ck
_______________________________________________
Springframework-developer mailing list
Spr...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer