On Mar 15, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > On 3/15/2012 7:57 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> Not only this; well, yes it is simply this at the technical level but it is >> much much more in the end result and approach: in fact in my poc I have laid >> out some simple but very effective best practices for programming services >> and events: the code I added is minimal (a few lines... that after Adrian's >> refactoring became 10 times more... but the OFBiz community likes heavy >> stuff :-) ) > > The refactoring might have added a few lines to the Groovy implementation, > but it also eliminates the need for these classes: > > BshUtil.java > GroovyUtil.java > BeanShellEngine.java > BSFEngine.java > GroovyEngine.java > BsfEventHandler.java > GroovyEventHandler.java > > and when mini-language implements JSR-223, these classes will not be needed: > > SimpleEventHandler.java > SimpleServiceEngine.java > > The refactoring also adds support for many more scripting languages. > > So, I'm having a hard time understanding how the elimination of nine classes > (1100 lines of code) while adding support for more scripting languages can be > considered "heavy stuff."
Adrian, it was a joke not real criticism on you. However I was not talking about the JSR-223 work in general but about the conversion of the specific DSL language class into the helper/factory pattern; that added a lot of code to a poc class that was intended to enhance Groovy for OFBiz. But you are right, in *theory* 100 different languages could use the new helper classes now and at that point the overhead would make a lot of sense: but we will never really know if they will be used out of OFBiz. Jacopo > > -Adrian >
