I think the point of Minilang is simply to make development faster. At least that's how I use it.
Whatever works. :)
Perhaps Minilang is a hybrid, somewhere between hardcore programming and BPEL? If Minilang evolves
into BPEL, so be it. I'll use it as long as it is easy and quick to cook. For now, it's
intrinsically tied to OFBiz framework, and very little work (zero) is needed to tie Minilang into
OFBiz.
BPEL has exception handling, doesn't it?
Jonathon
Ean Schuessler wrote:
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 06:46:40 pm Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
I use Minilang mostly to deal with incoming parameters from http requests.
I would think that any issues with reading those parameters would've been
centrally and conveniently handled at the "Webapp" engine. If not, they
should.
Even reading uploaded temporary files can be pre-checked by the underlying
OFBiz engine.
Sanitizing of incoming parameters is a common design pattern meant to
simplify codes further downstream. It's like "Quality Control" (QC), making
it easier for me to plug a harddisk into my computer without first checking
for exceptional circuitry in the harddisk that might feedback harmful
currents into my computer.
Also like how you can easily "assert" (assume) that I can read English, and
not have to consider the exceptional case that I might come from Mars. :)
(Do they speak English?).
If the point of Minilang is to provide an orchestration and sequencing
definition that does not touch on programming intrinsics then we should
consider BPEL. The diagramming approach really opens the process to
non-technical stakeholders who have deep domain knowledge.
