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.
Mark