My only opinion on this is that you make things as compatible with json as
possible.
jon
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Kin-man Chung <kinman.chung_at_oracle.com>wrote:
> As I mentioned before, it has been suggested that EL use the syntax that
> is being proposed for JDK 8 for collection literals.
>
> The current syntax for JDK 8 is as the following:
>
> 1. Set: {1, 2, 3}
> 2. List: ["one", "two", "three"]
> 3. Map: {"one": 1, "two": 2, "three": 3 }
>
> There is no literals for arrays. Presumably it can be accomplished with,
> for instance, new int[] {1,23} that is already in Java.
>
> Therefore I think we should also omit array literals, not only because JDK
> 8 does not have it, but also because a Java array does not implement a
> java.lang.Collection or java.lang.Iterable, so it cannot partake the query
> operators. This is not a big lost, because one can always construct an
> array from a List easily:
>
> ["one", "two", "three"].toArray()
>
> Other scripting languages, such as javascript or PHP, also do not have
> arrays, and use a list in place of an array whenever an array is needed.
>
> I am not sure if a Set literal is useful in EL, but am inclined to keep it
> for completeness.
>
> I also realize that a Map is not a collection, so in the query operations,
> we'll need to iterate over its Collection view, i.e. Map.entrySet. For
> instance, if salary is a map of name to annual amount, the following is a
> collection of names whose salary is greater then 10000.
>
> salary.where(#{p -> p.value > 10000}).select(#{p -> p.key})
>
> If there is no other opinions, I'll update the wiki page to reflect such
> changes.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kin-man
>