On 26 Feb 2014, at 22:54, Dmitri Zimine <d...@stackstorm.com> wrote:
> Based on the terminology from [1], it's not part of the model, but the > language that describes the model in the file. Sorry, I’m having a hard time trying to understand this phrase :) What do you mean by “model” here? And why should DSL be a part of the model? > And theoretically this may be not the only language to express the workflow. Sure, from that perspective, for example, JVM has many “DSLs”: Java, Scala, Groovy etc. > Once the file is parsed, we operate on model, not on the language. How does it influence using term DSL? DSL is, in fact, a user interface. Model is something we build inside a system to process DSL in a more convenient way. > > I am afraid we are breaking an abstraction when begin to call things > DSLWorkbook or DSLWorkflow. What is the difference between Workbook and > DSLWorkbook, and how DSL is relevant here? Prefix “DSL” tells that this exactly matches the structure of an object declared with using DSL. But, for example, a workbook in a database may have (and it has) a different structure better suitable for storing it in a relational model. So I’m not sure what you mean by saying “we are breaking an abstraction” here. What abstraction? > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Mistral,
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
