The end() idiom was just something I put in to make it clear when an
element was closing (there's no way to easily express the difference
between an attribute and a subelement of a config node, or when an
element is finishing). I'm not married to any particular syntax here,
and it definitely has room for improvement.
Just to refer back to my previous reply to Hadrian, imagine this sort of
thing, and you get a much better idea as to where my thinking is heading
with regard to the power of a DSL.
String[] destinationsToReplicate = new String[] {"a", "b", "c", "d",
"e"...};
List<VirtualDestinationDefinition> virtualDestinations = new ArrayList()<>;
for (String destination : destinationsToReplicate} {
virtualDestinations.add(
compositeQueue(destination) // statically included method
.forwardOnly(true)
.forwardTo()
.queue("toNY." + destination)
.queue("toLN." + destination)
.topic("audit." + destination));
}
ActiveMQBrokers.broker("TY.orderRouter")
.destinationInterceptors()
.virtualDestinationInterception()
.withVirtualDestinations(virtualDestinations)
.networkConnectors()
.networkConnector("TY-NY", "tcp...")
.staticallyIncludedDestinations("toNY.>")
.networkConnector("TY-LN", "tcp...")
.staticallyIncludedDestinations("toLN.>");
Tiny amount of code, lots of work being performed, easy to comprehend
and maintain.
If you had multiple brokers in different geographical locations, you
could inject all the string values from some config into a template
broker definition, and have a standard deployed process that uses this
DSL spin up a uniformly configured broker specific to that location.
That's something you can't do with ease right now.
Jakub
On 13/03/15 22:18, David Jencks wrote:
Unfortunately your sample didn't show up on the mailing list…. I had to resort
to looking at nabble.
I think your example is too simple to see the benefits of a fluent api. For
instance, you haven't added an object that itself needs configuration to a
collection (e.g. transport connector). My experience is that they make
configuring anything reasonably complicated 10x simpler and more pleasant :-)
That being said….. I'm not familiar with the ".end()" idiom. Is this common?
"standard"? I'd think it would be less confusing if they were .endTransportConnectors()
etc so it was clear what you were ending.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 13, 2015, at 5:32 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote:
I see "fluent is easier" as a valid argument to maintaining the project, but
not necessarily as a reason to pull it into the ActiveMQ main code base.
Still, I am 50/50 on this myself. I personally don't have a need for
simpler configuration of embedded brokers. Also, the syntax of fluent
builders doesn't appeal to me personally, so that makes it harder for me to
buy-in. For example:
Seems simpler to understand than (I'm making this one up - not using the
posted language):
With that said - I acknowledge this is my opinion and welcome some
discussion of the benefit of including the code inside of ActiveMQ itself
(beyond the well-understood "it will then be maintained with the core
code").
Art
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-DSLs-tp4693171p4693202.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
