> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > >> RT about a business logic definition system that has > >>these goals: > >> > >>1. has a quick write-test-correct cycle, ie not to be compiled > >>2. is easy to write and understand > >>3. is modular > >>4. will make flowscript a solution to a problem, not a problem itself > > > > > James Strachan wrote: > > Certainly I think Jelly solves all the above goals. > > > > One of the things I wanted Jelly to do is to take existing declarative > > langauges for workflow, rules, business logic, testing, building and so > > forth and turn them into running code easily. So Jelly could, for example, > > implement the flow / workflow language defined in the commons-workflow > > component in Jakarta Commons sandbox, or any other declarative XML language. > > > > Lately I've been looking into using Jelly to implement declarative workflow > > style XML languages. There's a bunch of them out there like BPML, XLang, > > WfMC, WSFL etc. What I'd like is for us to design the most appropriate > > declarative XML language for the problem at hand, then try to use Jelly to > > turn that into a running script. So its on my todo list to investigate using > > Jelly with projects like OSWorkflow to implement the declarative part of > > business logic, make tag libraries for rules engines like drools or for > > state transition modules etc. > > > > I hope some of this has made some sense to some of you ;-). I'd appreciate > > any comments you might have. > > If we want to make a business logic system that is based on tasks, I have > little doubt that we could find something better than Jelly :-) > > Not only can one reuse tags, but can use tag libraries that have been > incompatible before to be used together. > > The question is: what *is* business logic?
Not going into discussion of what is business logic (in our part of universe the answer is - EJB ;) ... I think it does make sense to have JellyGenerator on same rights as there is VelocityGenerator, because: > James Strachan wrote: > So in some ways Jelly is like Velocity, but using > XML notation for directives rather than Velocity's # notation (more on > this later). Vadim > If we make a Jelly business logic system, a Jelly Generator, a Jelly > Transformer and a Jelly flow control system, what would prevent the > developer from getting mixed up and not understand what to code where? > > -- > Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - verba volant, scripta manent - > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
