This library (3.2.6) vs Apache commons library (4.0)? about ognl HOT 8 CLOSED

This library (3.x series) should be treated as outdated but still supported. But in longer perspective I would like to port all the fixes/improvements to the Apache Commons OGNL and used it instead this library. Any backward compatibility will be persisted in matter of functionality (you will have to just use different imports).

So if you want to start a new project you can use this library (3.x series) with a clear path to migrate to 4.x at some point.

from ognl.

Thanks,

Is there a list of things that are fixed in 3.x that are not in 4.x?
What about things fixed in 4.x that are not in 3.x?

from ognl.

There is no such list and mainly performance was improved in 4.x

from ognl.

Aug 7, 2018
This library (3.x series) should be treated as outdated but still supported.

Does this still make sense, considering this (3.x) is actively developed compared to https://github.com/apache/commons-ognl (which is not, and doesn't seem to have to contain a single stable release)?

from ognl.

Yeah... yet I still have hope :)

from ognl.

Maybe I am confused about the status of things... does the current state of apache/commons-ognl/4.0.0-SNAPSHOT contain something that is not in the jkuhnert/ognl/3.2?
If not, would it then make more sense to just move everything from here (the development of 3.2 (and 3.1?)) from this repo to that one? (Until it one day reaches 4.0.0 version)
Or am I missing something?

from ognl.

It's complicated ;-)

OGNL 4.0 contains some performance improvements plus some performance tests. But this project is under Apache Commons and I was/am always worried that it will take months to release a new version because of high expectations. It was easier for me to handle changes here and release them when needed.

from ognl.

I took over the OGNL project and I will going to maintain and extend it here

from ognl.