On 09.04.2010 20:11, Kin-man Chung wrote:
> On 04/09/10 06:47, Pete Muir wrote:
>> The CDI spec calls for namespaced bean names (see section 2.5). It says
>>
>> "A bean may have a bean EL name. A bean with an EL name may be
>> referred to by its name in Unified EL expressions. A valid bean EL
>> name is a period-separated list of valid EL identifiers.
>>
>> The following strings are valid EL names:
>>
>> * org.mydomain.myapp.settings
>> * orderManager"
>>
> Just need to make sure I understand, and showing my ignorance about CDI:
>
> The expression #{org.mydomain.myapp.settings.standard} actually means
> getting the property "standard" from the bean
>
> org.mydomain.myapp.settings, right? How can this work with the
> current EL? Wouldn't the expression be parsed as getting the bean
> "org" and then get its property "mydomain", and then its property
> "myapp" etc?
>
> Interestingly, the parsing problem we have here is the same as that in
> the static methods. So maybe we can find a mechanism that works in
> both cases.
>
Wouldn't this be done simply with an ELResolver placed prior to the
BeanELResolver in the chain of resolvers?
>
>> I would like that we consider if this is something UEL can (should?)
>> support natively. This could be part of BeanLookup contract that
>> Kin-man proposed. We've already discussed whether it is possible to
>> parse out the package name for static method calls, so I hope we can
>> apply the result of that discussion here...
>> WDYT?
>>
> Agreed. Let me think about this/
>
> -Kin-man
>> Pete
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: el-next-unsubscribe_at_uel.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: el-next-help_at_uel.dev.java.net
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: el-next-unsubscribe_at_uel.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: el-next-help_at_uel.dev.java.net
>