On 08/05/11 02:14, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 05/08/2011 00:12, Kin-man Chung wrote:
>
>> One of the proposed features for this JSR is the inclusion of static
>> fields in EL expressions. The Java syntax for static fields (e.g.
>> "a.b.MyClass.field") is in direct conflict with the EL dot ('.')
>> operator and using that syntax in EL would introduce an ambiguity at
>> parse time. It has been suggested before that we keep the ambiguity at
>> parse time, and use an ELResolver to resolve it run evaluation time.
>>
>> Instead of pursuing such idea, I'd like to use another idea from Spring
>> EL, which uses the notation T() to denote a type. So to reference a
>> static field one would write, for instance,
>>
>> #{"T(java.lang.System).out"}
>>
>> Spring EL also use T() to specify an instance of Class, but I think it
>> overloads its meaning unnecessarily, when one can use T().class to do
>> the same thing. But this is just an aside.
>>
>> I think this is a very good compromise. It is simpler to implement and
>> should lead to better performance.
>>
>> Please tell me what you think, before I go and work out all the details
>> in the spec. :-) Thanks.
>>
> My only concern would be if this introduced other ambiguities. I don't
> see any so +1 from me.
>
>
The only ambiguity I see is the id "T", since T() can be taken to mean a
function call. We may have to make T a reserved word. Hmm...
Kin-man
> Mark
>