Date: 2004-04-27T07:46:10
Editor: HowardLewisShip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wiki: Jakarta HiveMind Wiki
Page: NotXMLProposal
URL: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-hivemind/NotXMLProposal
no comment
Change Log:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -154,3 +154,18 @@
HarishKrishnaswamy: Christian, I am not sure how you can construct the service
from with the configuration file using simple closures. Could you elaborate?
Howard, Beanshell is simply plain Java with some syntax sugar, so it is not
necessary that every line should be an executable statement. I think the use of
a scripting language is two-fold - make the config file smaller and simpler,
and also simplify the framework internals. The SDL, although looks better than
XML, still requires a lot of typing.
+
+HowardLewisShip: I think we can optimize the format somewhat; the SDL version
is isomorphic to the XML version, but even the XML version could be made more
succinct. We seem to be in a situation of ''declarative'' (SDL/XML) vs.
''procedural'' (scripting). To me, scripting opens up a whole can of worms ...
and sacrifices one of the '''key''' features of !HiveMind: line precise error
reporting. Groovy builders are a step up from pure BeanShell statements but
still miss the mark. I think HiveDoc will also suffer. I have nothing against
something like:
+
+{{{
+. . . invoke-factory (service-id=foo.bar.BeanShellServiceFactory)
+{
+ script <<
+
+return new MyServiceImpl(. . .);
+
+>>;
+} . . .
+}}}
+
+The {{{<< . . . >>}}} syntax is something I'm looking to add into my SDL
prototype. I like the idea of scripting, but I like line precise error
reporting much, much more. I also think scripting introduces further problems
if and when there is tool support (the tool has to parse the script, which is
not nearly so regular as the SDL or XML).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
