Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On 15 March 2012 16:37, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: On Mar 15, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Anne wrote: I go away for a few days, and you drop the DSL idea and replace it with an old-fashioned language-agnostic helper class. :-) Anne, I must admit that I had the same reaction at the beginning, but in a community you have to blend your plans/ideas with the ones from others if they have strong opinions on them. Yes, Jacopo, I agree. Way I see it, if the community decides to do something I don't want (which isn't the case here!) I have two choices. I can silently live with it, or silently leave. I am happy with the helper class, just not as happy as I was when I thought a DSL was being developed. The helper class is a big improvement over the current system, and I am pleased it exists. I also accepted to see my work being re-routed when I realized we could still implement Groovy services and events in a very nice way: if you review the new version of my services/events, apart from the ugly ofbiz. prefix, all the important things are exactly the same. That is good to hear, though it is the possible directions the DSL could have gone in the future that I was looking forward to, rather than what had already been achieved. I have the following short term plans: * we will expand the DSL (i.e. the helper class) a little bit in order to provide a couple more frequently used operations * I will keep a close eye at the way the helper class evolves in order to avoid the risk of seeing it become another ugly complex api * at some point we may decide to wrap it into a Groovy friendly class to enable full DSL * we have also some plans to implement a Groovy builder for complex dynamic view entities or entity queries: this would complete the DSL for Groovy (if possible we will implement it in a Java friendly way, but if not it will be a Groovy only thing) +1 to all of this. Cheers, Anne. -- Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd PO Box 2773 Cheltenham Vic 3192 Phone: (03) 9585 6788 Fax: (03) 9585 1086 Web: http://www.cohsoft.com.au/ Email: sa...@cohsoft.com.au Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Adrian, all,
I am summarizing here the results of my initial tests of the Groovy service and
event executed by Adrian's Script* classes (using JSR-223).
First of all, here are the service and events updated to work with the new code
(they run with the latest enhancements I committed to framework code):
=
import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilDateTime
import org.ofbiz.entity.util.EntityUtil
// THIS IS A SERVICE
def setLastInventoryCount() {
inventoryItem = ofbiz.findOne('InventoryItem')
if (!inventoryItem) {
ofbiz.logWarning(The InventoryItem with
inventoryItemId=${parameters.inventoryItemId} doesn't exist.)
return ofbiz.failure(Inventory item with id
${parameters.inventoryItemId} was not found.)
}
List productFacilities = ofbiz.findList('ProductFacility',
[productId:inventoryItem.productId, facilityId:inventoryItem.facilityId])
productFacilities.each {
countResult = ofbiz.runService('getInventoryAvailableByFacility',
[productId:it.productId, facilityId: it.facilityId])
result = ofbiz.runService('updateProductFacility',
[productId:it.productId, facilityId:it.facilityId,
lastInventoryCount:countResult.availableToPromiseTotal])
}
return ofbiz.success(Updated inventory count for product
${inventoryItem.productId}.)
}
// THIS IS AN EVENT
def updateProductCategoryMember() {
thruDate = parameters.thruDate
if (!thruDate) {
thruDate = UtilDateTime.nowTimestamp()
}
try {
productCategoryMember =
EntityUtil.getFirst(EntityUtil.filterByDate(ofbiz.findList('ProductCategoryMember',
[productCategoryId: parameters.productCategoryId, productId:
parameters.productId])))
if (productCategoryMember) {
productCategoryMember.setString('thruDate', thruDate)
productCategoryMember.store()
}
} catch(Exception e) {
return ofbiz.error(The following error occurred setting thruDate on
category ${parameters.productCategoryId} for product ${parameters.productId}:
${e.getMessage()})
}
return ofbiz.success(Set thruDate ${thruDate} on category
${parameters.productCategoryId} for product ${parameters.productId})
}
=
And here are some comments, each with a face to highlight the result:
:-) good
:-/ so and so
:-( bad
* the code above is the whole content of the file I have created: as you can
see is still very clear: no need to declare classes, define accessors; you
simply have to write the business logic
** :-)
* after the switch to JSR-223 the DSL method are accessed thru the ofbiz
reference (instead of being directly available as method calls)
** :-/ (because of the small added complexity) but also :-) because now the
IDE is able to autocomplete the method calls to the ofbiz object (with a
small tweak that I will explain); this is actually a nice to have feature
* after the switch to JSR-223 the debugger of my IDE (Idea) is no more able to
walk the Groovy services and events; it is working like a charm when using the
Groovy specific service engine and event handler
** :-( this is really a bummer! is this only an issue with Idea? is it working
with Eclipse? Need to research on this
The summary is:
* the new mechanism works fine and still allows to implement very nice services
and events; this is really good
* the debug issue is rather big one (the lack of debugging tools for Minilang
was one of the most frequent complains) but this is an issue that can be
researched/addressed and shouldn't block the evaluation/adoption of this new
language for services/events; even if we will fail to find a solution we could
easily run the Groovy services/events using the custom engine/handler and this
will not require any code change to the services/events
Next step:
it would be really nice to continue this proof of concepts by converting some
interesting Java services/events and Minilang services/events to Groovy: this
will help to complete the ScriptHelper classes and greatly help to appreciate
pros and cons.
Is there any interest in this effort? I see a big potential in this approach,
but the opinion from the community will be important.
Kind regards,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Cool - thanks! My apologies - I had not given much thought to the object
construction sequence in that section of code.
I'm pretty sure I followed good concurrency practices overall, but there is
always a chance I missed something.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 3:49 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
This is now fixed in rev. 1300202
By the way: we will need to carefully review the way
ScriptHelper/ContextHelper are built (and especially how the context is
passed) in order to make sure the code is thread safe.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
That's great news Jacopo! Thank you very much for working on this.
This effort will accomplish much more than just implement an OFBiz DSL -
it also opens up other interesting possibilities. For example, a user
could drop a JSR-223 PHP script engine in OFBiz and with a little
tweaking here and there, be able to use products like Drupal and Joomla
as an OFBiz front end. Also, server-side JavaScript is gaining in
popularity - which makes sense. Why have two teams of developers - one
for client-side JavaScript, and another for server-side scripting? You
can use the same tools and skill sets on both sides of the connection.
-Adrian
On 3/14/2012 7:56 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, all,
I am summarizing here the results of my initial tests of the Groovy service and
event executed by Adrian's Script* classes (using JSR-223).
First of all, here are the service and events updated to work with the new code
(they run with the latest enhancements I committed to framework code):
=
import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilDateTime
import org.ofbiz.entity.util.EntityUtil
// THIS IS A SERVICE
def setLastInventoryCount() {
inventoryItem = ofbiz.findOne('InventoryItem')
if (!inventoryItem) {
ofbiz.logWarning(The InventoryItem with
inventoryItemId=${parameters.inventoryItemId} doesn't exist.)
return ofbiz.failure(Inventory item with id ${parameters.inventoryItemId}
was not found.)
}
List productFacilities = ofbiz.findList('ProductFacility',
[productId:inventoryItem.productId, facilityId:inventoryItem.facilityId])
productFacilities.each {
countResult = ofbiz.runService('getInventoryAvailableByFacility',
[productId:it.productId, facilityId: it.facilityId])
result = ofbiz.runService('updateProductFacility',
[productId:it.productId, facilityId:it.facilityId,
lastInventoryCount:countResult.availableToPromiseTotal])
}
return ofbiz.success(Updated inventory count for product
${inventoryItem.productId}.)
}
// THIS IS AN EVENT
def updateProductCategoryMember() {
thruDate = parameters.thruDate
if (!thruDate) {
thruDate = UtilDateTime.nowTimestamp()
}
try {
productCategoryMember =
EntityUtil.getFirst(EntityUtil.filterByDate(ofbiz.findList('ProductCategoryMember',
[productCategoryId: parameters.productCategoryId, productId:
parameters.productId])))
if (productCategoryMember) {
productCategoryMember.setString('thruDate', thruDate)
productCategoryMember.store()
}
} catch(Exception e) {
return ofbiz.error(The following error occurred setting thruDate on
category ${parameters.productCategoryId} for product ${parameters.productId}:
${e.getMessage()})
}
return ofbiz.success(Set thruDate ${thruDate} on category
${parameters.productCategoryId} for product ${parameters.productId})
}
=
And here are some comments, each with a face to highlight the result:
:-) good
:-/ so and so
:-( bad
* the code above is the whole content of the file I have created: as you can
see is still very clear: no need to declare classes, define accessors; you
simply have to write the business logic
** :-)
* after the switch to JSR-223 the DSL method are accessed thru the ofbiz
reference (instead of being directly available as method calls)
** :-/ (because of the small added complexity) but also :-) because now the IDE is able
to autocomplete the method calls to the ofbiz object (with a small tweak that
I will explain); this is actually a nice to have feature
* after the switch to JSR-223 the debugger of my IDE (Idea) is no more able to
walk the Groovy services and events; it is working like a charm when using the
Groovy specific service engine and event handler
** :-( this is really a bummer! is this only an issue with Idea? is it working
with Eclipse? Need to research on this
The summary is:
* the new mechanism works fine and still allows to implement very nice services
and events; this is really good
* the debug issue is rather big one (the lack of debugging tools for Minilang was one of
the most frequent complains) but this is an issue that can be researched/addressed and
shouldn't block the evaluation/adoption of this new language for
services/events; even if we will fail to find a solution we could easily run the Groovy
services/events using the custom engine/handler and this will not require any code change
to the services/events
Next step:
it would be really nice to continue this proof of concepts by converting some
interesting Java services/events and Minilang services/events to Groovy: this
will help to complete the ScriptHelper classes and greatly help to appreciate
pros and cons.
Is there any interest in this effort? I see a big potential in this approach,
but the opinion from the community will be
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On 3/14/2012 7:56 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: * after the switch to JSR-223 the DSL method are accessed thru the ofbiz reference (instead of being directly available as method calls) You could implement your own script engine factory to enable the extended Script class + DSL idea (GroovyBaseScript). -Adrian
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: On 3/14/2012 7:56 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: * after the switch to JSR-223 the DSL method are accessed thru the ofbiz reference (instead of being directly available as method calls) You could implement your own script engine factory to enable the extended Script class + DSL idea (GroovyBaseScript). Yes, this is what I meant... however I think it is fine to keep the ofbiz. syntax for now and see how it goes (the switch in the future would be a matter of a few search-and-replace operations). Actually a more compelling reason for using a custom engine would be to enable debugging... but even if we decide to do this I would prefer to continue to use the ofbiz. syntax (i.e. do not inject the GroovyBaseScript)... in this way the decision engine switch will not affect in any way the code in the scripts. When everything will be consolidated it will be easier to see what the is the best way to go. Jacopo -Adrian
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Speaking of consolidation, once I have the mini-language grammar finalized, I will have mini-language implement JSR-223 so that it can be run in the same generic way. Then we will be able to remove a some of the mini-language specific classes (service/event engines). -Adrian On 3/14/2012 8:29 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: On 3/14/2012 7:56 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: * after the switch to JSR-223 the DSL method are accessed thru the ofbiz reference (instead of being directly available as method calls) You could implement your own script engine factory to enable the extended Script class + DSL idea (GroovyBaseScript). Yes, this is what I meant... however I think it is fine to keep the ofbiz. syntax for now and see how it goes (the switch in the future would be a matter of a few search-and-replace operations). Actually a more compelling reason for using a custom engine would be to enable debugging... but even if we decide to do this I would prefer to continue to use the ofbiz. syntax (i.e. do not inject the GroovyBaseScript)... in this way the decision engine switch will not affect in any way the code in the scripts. When everything will be consolidated it will be easier to see what the is the best way to go. Jacopo -Adrian
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
This is nice. It would be also nice to move Minilang framework code out of the OFBiz framework to become a separate project for the language itself (and OFBiz applications could use it as they use Groovy); but I know this will be impossible because of the dependencies on OFBiz services/delegator. Jacopo On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: Speaking of consolidation, once I have the mini-language grammar finalized, I will have mini-language implement JSR-223 so that it can be run in the same generic way. Then we will be able to remove a some of the mini-language specific classes (service/event engines). -Adrian On 3/14/2012 8:29 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: On 3/14/2012 7:56 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: * after the switch to JSR-223 the DSL method are accessed thru the ofbiz reference (instead of being directly available as method calls) You could implement your own script engine factory to enable the extended Script class + DSL idea (GroovyBaseScript). Yes, this is what I meant... however I think it is fine to keep the ofbiz. syntax for now and see how it goes (the switch in the future would be a matter of a few search-and-replace operations). Actually a more compelling reason for using a custom engine would be to enable debugging... but even if we decide to do this I would prefer to continue to use the ofbiz. syntax (i.e. do not inject the GroovyBaseScript)... in this way the decision engine switch will not affect in any way the code in the scripts. When everything will be consolidated it will be easier to see what the is the best way to go. Jacopo -Adrian
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Apache Jelly is probably the project you're looking to create :-) http://commons.apache.org/jelly/ Regards Scott On 14/03/2012, at 9:49 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: This is nice. It would be also nice to move Minilang framework code out of the OFBiz framework to become a separate project for the language itself (and OFBiz applications could use it as they use Groovy); but I know this will be impossible because of the dependencies on OFBiz services/delegator. Jacopo On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: Speaking of consolidation, once I have the mini-language grammar finalized, I will have mini-language implement JSR-223 so that it can be run in the same generic way. Then we will be able to remove a some of the mini-language specific classes (service/event engines). -Adrian On 3/14/2012 8:29 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: On 3/14/2012 7:56 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: * after the switch to JSR-223 the DSL method are accessed thru the ofbiz reference (instead of being directly available as method calls) You could implement your own script engine factory to enable the extended Script class + DSL idea (GroovyBaseScript). Yes, this is what I meant... however I think it is fine to keep the ofbiz. syntax for now and see how it goes (the switch in the future would be a matter of a few search-and-replace operations). Actually a more compelling reason for using a custom engine would be to enable debugging... but even if we decide to do this I would prefer to continue to use the ofbiz. syntax (i.e. do not inject the GroovyBaseScript)... in this way the decision engine switch will not affect in any way the code in the scripts. When everything will be consolidated it will be easier to see what the is the best way to go. Jacopo -Adrian
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Actually, it is impossible because a lot of framework code depends on mini-language. -Adrian On 3/14/2012 8:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: This is nice. It would be also nice to move Minilang framework code out of the OFBiz framework to become a separate project for the language itself (and OFBiz applications could use it as they use Groovy); but I know this will be impossible because of the dependencies on OFBiz services/delegator. Jacopo On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: Speaking of consolidation, once I have the mini-language grammar finalized, I will have mini-language implement JSR-223 so that it can be run in the same generic way. Then we will be able to remove a some of the mini-language specific classes (service/event engines). -Adrian On 3/14/2012 8:29 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: On 3/14/2012 7:56 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: * after the switch to JSR-223 the DSL method are accessed thru the ofbiz reference (instead of being directly available as method calls) You could implement your own script engine factory to enable the extended Script class + DSL idea (GroovyBaseScript). Yes, this is what I meant... however I think it is fine to keep the ofbiz. syntax for now and see how it goes (the switch in the future would be a matter of a few search-and-replace operations). Actually a more compelling reason for using a custom engine would be to enable debugging... but even if we decide to do this I would prefer to continue to use the ofbiz. syntax (i.e. do not inject the GroovyBaseScript)... in this way the decision engine switch will not affect in any way the code in the scripts. When everything will be consolidated it will be easier to see what the is the best way to go. Jacopo -Adrian
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
I go away for a few days, and you drop the DSL idea and replace it with an old-fashioned language-agnostic helper class. I don't have a problem with that. It gives up the ability to develop a nice DSL which would necessarily be groovy based, but replaces it with the advantage of being able to use almost any scripting language (but without direct DSL support). Maybe once the helper class is mature, there won't be much point creating a DSL. If there is still a point, a DSL probably would be easier to create using the helper class. Unfortunately I don't have time to help much with this effort at the moment, although I would really like to. I'll try to at least grab the changes soon and play with them, so I can give feedback. I do think it critical that the debugger works. The editing aids my editor gives me for groovy must also work. These are the two biggest issues with minilang, and why I no longer use minilang except for the simplest services. +1 to Jacopo's suggestion to concentrate on implementing what is actually used, and not what one thinks might be useful. Good work, everyone (especially Jacopo and Adrian). Cheers, Anne. -- Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd PO Box 2773 Cheltenham Vic 3192 Phone: (03) 9585 6788 Fax: (03) 9585 1086 Web: http://www.cohsoft.com.au/ Email: sa...@cohsoft.com.au Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 15, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Anne wrote: I go away for a few days, and you drop the DSL idea and replace it with an old-fashioned language-agnostic helper class. :-) Anne, I must admit that I had the same reaction at the beginning, but in a community you have to blend your plans/ideas with the ones from others if they have strong opinions on them. I also accepted to see my work being re-routed when I realized we could still implement Groovy services and events in a very nice way: if you review the new version of my services/events, apart from the ugly ofbiz. prefix, all the important things are exactly the same. So for now we can use this work assuming we have at disposal a nice language: Groovy powered by an OFBiz DSL I have the following short term plans: * we will expand the DSL (i.e. the helper class) a little bit in order to provide a couple more frequently used operations * I will keep a close eye at the way the helper class evolves in order to avoid the risk of seeing it become another ugly complex api * at some point we may decide to wrap it into a Groovy friendly class to enable full DSL * we have also some plans to implement a Groovy builder for complex dynamic view entities or entity queries: this would complete the DSL for Groovy (if possible we will implement it in a Java friendly way, but if not it will be a Groovy only thing) Then the OFBiz applications will have a great language to migrate to (if the community will see the benefit of migrating the existing application code from Java and Minilang to the new Groovy) or simply to use it for new development. Jacopo
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the
refactoring?
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend
it in any way they want.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply
delegate to the helper class:
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws
ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it OFBiz friendly; now we
have a reusable (? by other languages) version of it... my guess is that you did
it because you liked the ideas in it (and I appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for
other languages as well; and you may be right about this even if, as I initially mentioned,
I would have preferred to complete my work, or at least add a bit more to it, test the DSL
with more poc and Minilang--Groovy conversions before crystallizing it into an interface
(one of the advantages in doing it in Groovy was that I could implement it without the need
to build/restart the system)... now I have an interface and an implementation of it to take
care of.
But I don't want to complain (*) and I will review your work closely and see
what I can do to use it properly in Groovy. This refactoring has introduced a
series of limitations that I am determined to resolve and it will require some
more study around Groovy and ideas to cope with them... I really want that, if
we will ever adopt Groovy as our next language for the applications, it will
look as perfect and simple and natural and integrated as possible: the natural
language for OFBiz (like Minilang is now) rather than OFBiz implemented in
Groovy.
But before I proceed: what is the next step in your plan? What should go in the
ScriptHelper interface? Am I allowed to enhance it based on my discoveries in my
poc work (Minilang--Groovy) or should I consider it a final interface that
doesn't have to be modified? Should I ask before enhancing it? I don't want to
hijack your work. And more importantly: can I assume that this helper class will
stay light and simple? I really don't want to see it transformed into a huge class
containing a big amount of methods from different APIs... the fact that all
languages will potentially use it and may wish to extend it with util methods that
make sense to them concerns me a little bit (for example, a language with weak
support for Map handling may need utils methods to manage Maps that could be
useless for Groovy).
Kind regards and again thank you,
Jacopo
(*) even if I find a bit annoying to see my work intercepted and re-routed
while I was in the middle of it, I also appreciate the time and effort you
spent on it and I really want to accept the fact that working in a community
means that I have to blend and negotiate my own ideas and plans with the ones
from others: sometimes it means that you get great help, sometimes it means
that your own beautiful and perfect ideas are touched and rearranged to fit
other's plans and other's beautiful ideas.
I hope that the good attitude and flexibility I am trying to apply here will be
also used by you and others when it will be time for you to accept other's
proposals/changes
On Mar 13, 2012, at 12:35 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
I committed a generic, reusable version of this idea in rev 1299924.
-Adrian
On 3/8/2012 6:02 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hi all,
I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain
Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a
modern version of Minilang.
Please review my notes here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz
I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is
a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort
(reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky
:-)
Regards,
Jacopo
PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the
page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the strings in
Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander rather than the Groovy
GStrings... this could be confusing when you are programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely EntityListIterators... but
I can probably still do this in the GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend it
in any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want without
first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we all agree that
it should stay clean and light by providing simple access for common operations
rather than providing access to all the possible operations? I mean, it should
provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the most common ways; for special (less
frequent) tasks the calling script should use the features provided natively by
the language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply delegate to
the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it goes;
but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event handlers...
in order to keep the architecture clean should we start to think to them as
extensions for the applications only? I mean that they could be part of the
future release of OFBiz Applications and not part of the future release
OFBiz Framework. In this way the dependency and custom Groovy code will all
be in the Applications (if they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the
framework will stay clean and light.
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it OFBiz
friendly; now we have a reusable (? by other languages) version of it...
my guess is that you did it because you liked the ideas in it (and I
appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for other languages as well;
and you may be right about this even if, as I initially mentioned, I would
have preferred to complete my work, or at least add a bit more to it, test
the DSL with more poc and Minilang--Groovy conversions before crystallizing
it into an interface (one of the advantages in doing it in Groovy was that I
could implement it without the need to build/restart the system)... now I
have an interface and an implementation of it to take care of.
But I don't want to complain (*) and I will review your work closely and see
what I can do to use it properly in Groovy. This refactoring has introduced
a series of limitations that I am determined to resolve and it will require
some more study around Groovy and ideas to cope with them... I really want
that, if we will ever adopt Groovy as our next language for the
applications, it will look as perfect and simple and natural and integrated
as possible: the natural language for OFBiz (like Minilang is now) rather
than OFBiz implemented in Groovy.
But before I proceed: what is the next step in your plan? What should go in
the ScriptHelper interface? Am I allowed to enhance it based on my
discoveries in my poc work (Minilang--Groovy) or should I consider it a
final interface that doesn't have to be modified? Should I ask before
enhancing it? I don't want to hijack your work. And more importantly: can I
assume that this helper class will stay light and simple? I really don't
want to see it transformed into a huge class containing a big amount of
methods from different APIs... the fact that all languages will potentially
use it and may wish to extend it with util methods that make sense to them
concerns me a little bit (for example, a language with weak support for Map
handling may need utils methods to manage Maps that could be useless for
Groovy).
Kind regards and again thank you,
Jacopo
(*) even if I find a bit annoying to see my work intercepted and re-routed
while I was in the middle of it, I also appreciate the time and effort you
spent on it and I really want to accept the fact that working in a community
means that I have to blend and negotiate my own ideas and plans with the
ones from others: sometimes it
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the strings in
Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander rather than the Groovy
GStrings... this could be confusing when you are programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely EntityListIterators... but
I can probably still do this in the GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend it in
any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want without
first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we all agree that
it should stay clean and light by providing simple access for common operations
rather than providing access to all the possible operations? I mean, it should
provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the most common ways; for special (less
frequent) tasks the calling script should use the features provided natively by
the language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity
engine, service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply delegate to
the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it goes; but we will still
need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean
should we start to think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean that they could be
part of the future release of OFBiz Applications and not part of the future release
OFBiz Framework. In this way the dependency and custom Groovy code will all be in the
Applications (if they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper
so all scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same
code base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a
reduced framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top
of the new framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the
scripting component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it OFBiz friendly; now we
have a reusable (? by other languages) version of it... my guess is that you did
it because you liked the ideas in it (and I appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for
other languages as well; and you may be right about this even if, as I initially mentioned,
I would have preferred to complete my work, or at least add a bit more to it, test the DSL
with more poc and Minilang--Groovy conversions before crystallizing it into an interface
(one of the advantages in doing it in Groovy was that I could implement it without the need
to build/restart the system)... now I have an interface and an implementation of it to take
care of.
But I don't want to complain (*) and I will review your work closely and see
what I can do to use it properly in Groovy. This refactoring has introduced a
series of limitations that I am determined to resolve and it will require some
more study around Groovy and ideas to cope with them... I really want that, if
we will ever adopt Groovy as our next language for the applications, it will
look as perfect and simple and natural and integrated as possible: the natural
language for OFBiz (like Minilang is now) rather than OFBiz implemented in
Groovy.
But before I proceed: what is the next step in your plan? What should go in the
ScriptHelper interface? Am I allowed to enhance it based on my discoveries in my
poc work (Minilang--Groovy) or should I consider it a final interface that
doesn't have to be modified? Should I ask before enhancing it? I don't want to
hijack your work. And more importantly: can I assume that this helper class will
stay light and simple? I really don't want to see it transformed into a huge class
containing a big amount of methods from different APIs... the fact that all
languages will potentially use it and may wish to extend it with util methods that
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new
implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be nice
if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event handlers) rather
than the script itself... but I am testing it with a service and I can't get
the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I will
figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the
refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the strings
in Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander rather than the
Groovy GStrings... this could be confusing when you are programming in
Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely EntityListIterators...
but I can probably still do this in the GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend it
in any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want without
first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we all agree
that it should stay clean and light by providing simple access for common
operations rather than providing access to all the possible operations? I
mean, it should provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the most common
ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the calling script should use the
features provided natively by the language and the standard API
(delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity
engine, service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply delegate
to the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it
goes; but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event
handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean should we start to think
to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean that they could be
part of the future release of OFBiz Applications and not part of the
future release OFBiz Framework. In this way the dependency and custom
Groovy code will all be in the Applications (if they will be reimplemented
in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper so all
scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same code base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a reduced
framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top of the new
framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the scripting component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it OFBiz
friendly; now we have a reusable (? by other languages) version of it...
my guess is that you did it because you liked the ideas in it (and I
appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for other languages as well;
and you may be right about this even if, as I initially mentioned, I would
have preferred to complete my work, or at least add a bit more to it, test
the DSL with more poc and Minilang--Groovy conversions before
crystallizing it into an interface (one of the advantages in doing it in
Groovy was that I could implement it without the need to build/restart the
system)... now I have an interface and an implementation of it to take
care of.
But I don't want to complain (*) and I will review your work closely and
see what I can do to use it properly in Groovy. This refactoring has
introduced a series of limitations that I am determined to resolve and it
will require some more study around Groovy and ideas to cope with them...
I really want that, if we will ever adopt Groovy as our next language for
the applications, it will look as perfect and simple and
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new
implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be nice
if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event handlers) rather
than the script itself... but I am testing it with a service and I can't get
the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I will
figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the strings in
Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander rather than the Groovy
GStrings... this could be confusing when you are programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely EntityListIterators... but
I can probably still do this in the GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend it in
any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want without
first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we all agree that
it should stay clean and light by providing simple access for common operations
rather than providing access to all the possible operations? I mean, it should
provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the most common ways; for special (less
frequent) tasks the calling script should use the features provided natively by
the language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity engine,
service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply delegate to
the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it goes; but we will still
need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean
should we start to think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean that they could be
part of the future release of OFBiz Applications and not part of the future release
OFBiz Framework. In this way the dependency and custom Groovy code will all be in the
Applications (if they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper so all
scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same code base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a reduced
framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top of the new
framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the scripting component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it OFBiz friendly; now we
have a reusable (? by other languages) version of it... my guess is that you did
it because you liked the ideas in it (and I appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for
other languages as well; and you may be right about this even if, as I initially mentioned,
I would have preferred to complete my work, or at least add a bit more to it, test the DSL
with more poc and Minilang--Groovy conversions before crystallizing it into an interface
(one of the advantages in doing it in Groovy was that I could implement it without the need
to build/restart the system)... now I have an interface and an implementation of it to take
care of.
But I don't want to complain (*) and I will review your work closely and see
what I can do to use it properly in Groovy. This refactoring has introduced a
series of limitations that I am determined to resolve and it will require some
more study around Groovy and ideas to cope with them... I really want that, if
we will ever adopt Groovy as our next language for the applications, it
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to UNKNOWN
instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new
implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be
nice if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event
handlers) rather than the script itself... but I am testing it with a
service and I can't get the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I
will figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the
refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the
strings in Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander rather
than the Groovy GStrings... this could be confusing when you are
programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely
EntityListIterators... but I can probably still do this in the
GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend
it in any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want
without first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we
all agree that it should stay clean and light by providing simple access
for common operations rather than providing access to all the possible
operations? I mean, it should provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the
most common ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the calling script
should use the features provided natively by the language and the standard
API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity
engine, service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply delegate
to the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it
goes; but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event
handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean should we start to
think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean that they
could be part of the future release of OFBiz Applications and not part
of the future release OFBiz Framework. In this way the dependency and
custom Groovy code will all be in the Applications (if they will be
reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper so
all scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same code
base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a reduced
framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top of the new
framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the scripting component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws
ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it
OFBiz friendly; now we have a reusable (? by other languages) version
of it... my guess is that you did it because you liked the ideas in it
(and I appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for other languages
as well; and you may be right about this even if, as I initially
mentioned, I would have preferred to complete my work, or at least add a
bit more to it, test the DSL with more poc and Minilang--Groovy
conversions before crystallizing it into an interface (one of the
advantages in doing it in Groovy was that I could implement it without
the need to build/restart the system)... now I have an interface and an
implementation of it to take care of.
But I don't want to complain (*) and I will review your work closely and
see what I can do to use it properly
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
I think that this is because of the way it is initialized:
ScriptContext scriptContext = new SimpleScriptContext();
ScriptHelper helper = createScriptHelper(scriptContext);
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to UNKNOWN
instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new
implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be
nice if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event
handlers) rather than the script itself... but I am testing it with a
service and I can't get the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I
will figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the
refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the
strings in Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander
rather than the Groovy GStrings... this could be confusing when you are
programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely
EntityListIterators... but I can probably still do this in the
GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend
it in any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want
without first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we
all agree that it should stay clean and light by providing simple access
for common operations rather than providing access to all the possible
operations? I mean, it should provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the
most common ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the calling script
should use the features provided natively by the language and the
standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity
engine, service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply
delegate to the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it
goes; but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event
handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean should we start to
think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean that they
could be part of the future release of OFBiz Applications and not part
of the future release OFBiz Framework. In this way the dependency and
custom Groovy code will all be in the Applications (if they will be
reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper so
all scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same code
base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a reduced
framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top of the new
framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the scripting
component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws
ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it
OFBiz friendly; now we have a reusable (? by other languages) version
of it... my guess is that you did it because you liked the ideas in it
(and I appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for other languages
as well; and you may be right about this even if, as I initially
mentioned, I would have preferred to complete my work, or at least add
a bit more to it, test the DSL with more poc and Minilang--Groovy
conversions before crystallizing it into an interface (one of the
advantages in doing it in Groovy was that
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Is there a reason for not returning a GenericValue from:
MapString, Object makeValue(String entityName)
?
Well, the good reason is probably the dependency issue between framework
components... in my opinion it would be a good time to start thinking to drop
it and consider the core framework components all together:
base+service+entity
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I think that this is because of the way it is initialized:
ScriptContext scriptContext = new SimpleScriptContext();
ScriptHelper helper = createScriptHelper(scriptContext);
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to UNKNOWN
instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new
implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be
nice if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event
handlers) rather than the script itself... but I am testing it with a
service and I can't get the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I
will figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the
refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the
strings in Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander
rather than the Groovy GStrings... this could be confusing when you are
programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely
EntityListIterators... but I can probably still do this in the
GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify
it/extend it in any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want
without first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we
all agree that it should stay clean and light by providing simple access
for common operations rather than providing access to all the possible
operations? I mean, it should provide a mechanism to perform tasks in
the most common ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the calling
script should use the features provided natively by the language and the
standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity
engine, service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply
delegate to the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how
it goes; but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy
event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean should we
start to think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean
that they could be part of the future release of OFBiz Applications
and not part of the future release OFBiz Framework. In this way the
dependency and custom Groovy code will all be in the Applications (if
they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean
and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper so
all scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same
code base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a reduced
framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top of the new
framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the scripting
component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws
ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it
OFBiz friendly; now we have a reusable (? by other languages)
version of it... my guess is that you did it because you
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Yes, the arch-nemesis of innovation - component cross-dependency.
That's why the script helper needs a factory.
I was thinking we can insert a script component in between the service
and common component dependency. Move all of the script classes there -
*Util.java, event handlers, services engines, etc. It would make life a
lot easier.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 11:08 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Is there a reason for not returning a GenericValue from:
MapString, Object makeValue(String entityName)
?
Well, the good reason is probably the dependency issue between framework components... in
my opinion it would be a good time to start thinking to drop it and consider the
core framework components all together: base+service+entity
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I think that this is because of the way it is initialized:
ScriptContext scriptContext = new SimpleScriptContext();
ScriptHelper helper = createScriptHelper(scriptContext);
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to UNKNOWN
instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new
implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be nice
if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event handlers) rather
than the script itself... but I am testing it with a service and I can't get
the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I will
figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the strings in
Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander rather than the Groovy
GStrings... this could be confusing when you are programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely EntityListIterators... but
I can probably still do this in the GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend it in
any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want without
first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we all agree that
it should stay clean and light by providing simple access for common operations
rather than providing access to all the possible operations? I mean, it should
provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the most common ways; for special (less
frequent) tasks the calling script should use the features provided natively by
the language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity engine,
service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply delegate to
the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it goes; but we will still
need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean
should we start to think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean that they could be
part of the future release of OFBiz Applications and not part of the future release
OFBiz Framework. In this way the dependency and custom Groovy code will all be in the
Applications (if they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper so all
scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same code base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a reduced
framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top of the new
framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the scripting component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the refactoring? One annoying limitation is that, after switching from GroovyEngine to ScriptEngine my IDE (I am using Idea) is no more able to debug my Groovy services; this may be trivial (and I don't know if it happens with other editors as well) but in my opinion it would be alone a good reason for keeping the custom 50 lines of the GroovyEngine class I will try to see if there is something I can do to fix this, but the problem I am facing is probably this: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/breakpoints-in-groovy-script-files-td4264722.html Jacopo
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Yes, but I really think that, if we define what is part of the core OFBiz framework we could even go with merging the core code into one component. That would be even easier... but this is food for another day, I can survive even if makeValue returns a Map for now. Jacopo On Mar 13, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: Yes, the arch-nemesis of innovation - component cross-dependency. That's why the script helper needs a factory. I was thinking we can insert a script component in between the service and common component dependency. Move all of the script classes there - *Util.java, event handlers, services engines, etc. It would make life a lot easier. -Adrian On 3/13/2012 11:08 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Is there a reason for not returning a GenericValue from: MapString, Object makeValue(String entityName) ? Well, the good reason is probably the dependency issue between framework components... in my opinion it would be a good time to start thinking to drop it and consider the core framework components all together: base+service+entity Jacopo On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: I think that this is because of the way it is initialized: ScriptContext scriptContext = new SimpleScriptContext(); ScriptHelper helper = createScriptHelper(scriptContext); Jacopo On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to UNKNOWN instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now. Jacopo On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below. -Adrian On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hey Adrian, a quick question before I dig into the details. I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method. Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be nice if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event handlers) rather than the script itself... but I am testing it with a service and I can't get the message back. If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I will figure it out. Thanks, Jacopo On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: Jacopo, Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the refactoring? Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide feedback about the gaps I see. Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring. One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the strings in Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander rather than the Groovy GStrings... this could be confusing when you are programming in Groovy. I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely EntityListIterators... but I can probably still do this in the GroovyBaseScript. The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend it in any way they want. Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want without first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we all agree that it should stay clean and light by providing simple access for common operations rather than providing access to all the possible operations? I mean, it should provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the most common ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the calling script should use the features provided natively by the language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...). I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity engine, service engine, logging, etc. As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply delegate to the helper class: Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it goes; but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean should we start to think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean that they could be part of the future release of OFBiz Applications and not part of the future release OFBiz Framework. In this way the dependency and custom Groovy code will all be in the Applications (if they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean and light. I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper so all scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same code base. I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a reduced framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top of the new
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Adrian,
are you sure it is ok to create a ScriptHelper in this way:
public static ScriptHelper createScriptHelper(ScriptContext context) {
if (helperFactory != null) {
return helperFactory.getInstance(context);
}
return null;
}
?
I think you need a new one for every new context... but maybe I am missing your
intentions.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I think that this is because of the way it is initialized:
ScriptContext scriptContext = new SimpleScriptContext();
ScriptHelper helper = createScriptHelper(scriptContext);
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to UNKNOWN
instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new
implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be
nice if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event
handlers) rather than the script itself... but I am testing it with a
service and I can't get the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I
will figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the
refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the
strings in Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander
rather than the Groovy GStrings... this could be confusing when you are
programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely
EntityListIterators... but I can probably still do this in the
GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify
it/extend it in any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want
without first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we
all agree that it should stay clean and light by providing simple access
for common operations rather than providing access to all the possible
operations? I mean, it should provide a mechanism to perform tasks in
the most common ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the calling
script should use the features provided natively by the language and the
standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity
engine, service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply
delegate to the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how
it goes; but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy
event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean should we
start to think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean
that they could be part of the future release of OFBiz Applications
and not part of the future release OFBiz Framework. In this way the
dependency and custom Groovy code will all be in the Applications (if
they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean
and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper so
all scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same
code base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a reduced
framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top of the new
framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the scripting
component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws
ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it
OFBiz friendly; now we have a reusable (? by other languages)
version of it... my guess is that you
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
oops... please ignore my last one (doesn't make much sense)
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian,
are you sure it is ok to create a ScriptHelper in this way:
public static ScriptHelper createScriptHelper(ScriptContext context) {
if (helperFactory != null) {
return helperFactory.getInstance(context);
}
return null;
}
?
I think you need a new one for every new context... but maybe I am missing
your intentions.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I think that this is because of the way it is initialized:
ScriptContext scriptContext = new SimpleScriptContext();
ScriptHelper helper = createScriptHelper(scriptContext);
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to
UNKNOWN instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the
new implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults
method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would
be nice if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event
handlers) rather than the script itself... but I am testing it with a
service and I can't get the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry
I will figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the
refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will
provide feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the
strings in Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander
rather than the Groovy GStrings... this could be confusing when you are
programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely
EntityListIterators... but I can probably still do this in the
GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify
it/extend it in any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want
without first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do
we all agree that it should stay clean and light by providing simple
access for common operations rather than providing access to all the
possible operations? I mean, it should provide a mechanism to perform
tasks in the most common ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the
calling script should use the features provided natively by the
language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity
engine, service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply
delegate to the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how
it goes; but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy
event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean should we
start to think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean
that they could be part of the future release of OFBiz Applications
and not part of the future release OFBiz Framework. In this way the
dependency and custom Groovy code will all be in the Applications (if
they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean
and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper
so all scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same
code base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a
reduced framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top
of the new framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the
scripting component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper
{
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws
ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
This is now fixed in rev. 1300202
By the way: we will need to carefully review the way ScriptHelper/ContextHelper
are built (and especially how the context is passed) in order to make sure the
code is thread safe.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to UNKNOWN
instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new
implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be
nice if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event
handlers) rather than the script itself... but I am testing it with a
service and I can't get the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I
will figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the
refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the
strings in Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander
rather than the Groovy GStrings... this could be confusing when you are
programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely
EntityListIterators... but I can probably still do this in the
GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend
it in any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want
without first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we
all agree that it should stay clean and light by providing simple access
for common operations rather than providing access to all the possible
operations? I mean, it should provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the
most common ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the calling script
should use the features provided natively by the language and the
standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity
engine, service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply
delegate to the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it
goes; but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event
handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean should we start to
think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean that they
could be part of the future release of OFBiz Applications and not part
of the future release OFBiz Framework. In this way the dependency and
custom Groovy code will all be in the Applications (if they will be
reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper so
all scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same code
base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a reduced
framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top of the new
framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the scripting
component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws
ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it
OFBiz friendly; now we have a reusable (? by other languages) version
of it... my guess is that you did it because you liked the ideas in it
(and I appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for other languages
as well; and you may be right about this even if, as I initially
mentioned, I would have preferred to complete my work, or at least add
a bit more to it, test the DSL with more poc and Minilang--Groovy
conversions before crystallizing it into an interface (one of the
advantages in
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Cool - thanks! My apologies - I had not given much thought to the object
construction sequence in that section of code.
I'm pretty sure I followed good concurrency practices overall, but there
is always a chance I missed something.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 3:49 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
This is now fixed in rev. 1300202
By the way: we will need to carefully review the way ScriptHelper/ContextHelper
are built (and especially how the context is passed) in order to make sure the
code is thread safe.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to UNKNOWN
instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new
implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be nice
if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event handlers) rather
than the script itself... but I am testing it with a service and I can't get
the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I will
figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the strings in
Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander rather than the Groovy
GStrings... this could be confusing when you are programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely EntityListIterators... but
I can probably still do this in the GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend it in
any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want without
first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we all agree that
it should stay clean and light by providing simple access for common operations
rather than providing access to all the possible operations? I mean, it should
provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the most common ways; for special (less
frequent) tasks the calling script should use the features provided natively by
the language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity engine,
service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply delegate to
the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it goes; but we will still
need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean
should we start to think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean that they could be
part of the future release of OFBiz Applications and not part of the future release
OFBiz Framework. In this way the dependency and custom Groovy code will all be in the
Applications (if they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper so all
scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same code base.
I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a reduced
framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top of the new
framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the scripting component
Jacopo
abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper {
...
private final ScriptHelper helper;
Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws ScriptException {
return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
}
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
return helper.makeValue(entityName);
}
...
}
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, thank you for your work.
What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it OFBiz friendly; now we
have a reusable (? by other languages) version of it... my guess is that you did
it because you liked the ideas in it (and I appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for
other languages as well; and you may be right about this even if, as I initially mentioned,
I would have
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Adrian,
is there a reason for invoking the script from ScriptEngine and
ScriptEventHandler using:
Object resultObj =
ScriptUtil.executeScript(getLocation(modelService), modelService.invoke,
scriptContext, new Object[] { context });
rather than
Object resultObj =
ScriptUtil.executeScript(getLocation(modelService), modelService.invoke,
scriptContext, null);
I don't know what the args argument is used for but now we have to declare all
the Groovy methods (events and services) in this way:
def setLastInventoryCount(Map notUsedInputMap) {
...
}
rather than
def setLastInventoryCount() {
...
}
and I really like the latter form because it is essential and non technical:
the service/event *only* contains business rules specifications.
Any objections if I change the service/event handlers to pass a null args?
Please also see my comments inline:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Cool - thanks! My apologies - I had not given much thought to the object
construction sequence in that section of code.
Np, the code is young and I am happy to help to test/debug it.
I'm pretty sure I followed good concurrency practices overall, but there is
always a chance I missed something.
Ok, I didn't look enough closely at the details and in fact it may be good to
go.
Jacopo
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 3:49 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
This is now fixed in rev. 1300202
By the way: we will need to carefully review the way
ScriptHelper/ContextHelper are built (and especially how the context is
passed) in order to make sure the code is thread safe.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to
UNKNOWN instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the
new implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults
method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would
be nice if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event
handlers) rather than the script itself... but I am testing it with a
service and I can't get the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry
I will figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the
refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will
provide feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the
strings in Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander
rather than the Groovy GStrings... this could be confusing when you are
programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely
EntityListIterators... but I can probably still do this in the
GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify
it/extend it in any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want
without first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do
we all agree that it should stay clean and light by providing simple
access for common operations rather than providing access to all the
possible operations? I mean, it should provide a mechanism to perform
tasks in the most common ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the
calling script should use the features provided natively by the
language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity
engine, service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply
delegate to the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how
it goes; but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy
event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean should we
start to think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean
that they could be part of the future release of OFBiz Applications
and not part of the future release OFBiz Framework. In this way the
dependency and custom Groovy code will all be in the Applications (if
they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean
and light.
I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
The main reason is to supply a function/method argument if
modelService.invoke is not empty.
A script containing a function/method is evaluated twice - once to
evaluate the script as a whole and then again to invoke the
function/method. Any bindings that were created/used in the first
evaluation are lost in the function/method call - so the bindings are
passed as a function/method call argument.
I will update JavaScriptTest.js to illustrate the difference.
-Adrian
On 3/14/2012 5:18 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian,
is there a reason for invoking the script from ScriptEngine and
ScriptEventHandler using:
Object resultObj =
ScriptUtil.executeScript(getLocation(modelService), modelService.invoke,
scriptContext, new Object[] { context });
rather than
Object resultObj =
ScriptUtil.executeScript(getLocation(modelService), modelService.invoke,
scriptContext, null);
I don't know what the args argument is used for but now we have to declare all
the Groovy methods (events and services) in this way:
def setLastInventoryCount(Map notUsedInputMap) {
...
}
rather than
def setLastInventoryCount() {
...
}
and I really like the latter form because it is essential and non technical:
the service/event *only* contains business rules specifications.
Any objections if I change the service/event handlers to pass a null args?
Please also see my comments inline:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Cool - thanks! My apologies - I had not given much thought to the object
construction sequence in that section of code.
Np, the code is young and I am happy to help to test/debug it.
I'm pretty sure I followed good concurrency practices overall, but there is
always a chance I missed something.
Ok, I didn't look enough closely at the details and in fact it may be good to
go.
Jacopo
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 3:49 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
This is now fixed in rev. 1300202
By the way: we will need to carefully review the way ScriptHelper/ContextHelper
are built (and especially how the context is passed) in order to make sure the
code is thread safe.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to UNKNOWN
instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the new
implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would be nice
if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event handlers) rather
than the script itself... but I am testing it with a service and I can't get
the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry I will
figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will provide
feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the strings in
Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander rather than the Groovy
GStrings... this could be confusing when you are programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely EntityListIterators... but
I can probably still do this in the GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify it/extend it in
any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want without
first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do we all agree that
it should stay clean and light by providing simple access for common operations
rather than providing access to all the possible operations? I mean, it should
provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the most common ways; for special (less
frequent) tasks the calling script should use the features provided natively by
the language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity engine,
service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply delegate to
the helper class:
Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how it goes; but we will still
need the Groovy service engine and Groovy event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Okay, I lied - the bindings are preserved between evaluations.
So go ahead and make whatever changes you need to make.
-Adrian
On 3/14/2012 5:28 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
The main reason is to supply a function/method argument if
modelService.invoke is not empty.
A script containing a function/method is evaluated twice - once to
evaluate the script as a whole and then again to invoke the
function/method. Any bindings that were created/used in the first
evaluation are lost in the function/method call - so the bindings are
passed as a function/method call argument.
I will update JavaScriptTest.js to illustrate the difference.
-Adrian
On 3/14/2012 5:18 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian,
is there a reason for invoking the script from ScriptEngine and
ScriptEventHandler using:
Object resultObj =
ScriptUtil.executeScript(getLocation(modelService),
modelService.invoke, scriptContext, new Object[] { context });
rather than
Object resultObj =
ScriptUtil.executeScript(getLocation(modelService),
modelService.invoke, scriptContext, null);
I don't know what the args argument is used for but now we have to
declare all the Groovy methods (events and services) in this way:
def setLastInventoryCount(Map notUsedInputMap) {
...
}
rather than
def setLastInventoryCount() {
...
}
and I really like the latter form because it is essential and non
technical: the service/event *only* contains business rules
specifications.
Any objections if I change the service/event handlers to pass a null
args?
Please also see my comments inline:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Cool - thanks! My apologies - I had not given much thought to the
object construction sequence in that section of code.
Np, the code is young and I am happy to help to test/debug it.
I'm pretty sure I followed good concurrency practices overall, but
there is always a chance I missed something.
Ok, I didn't look enough closely at the details and in fact it may be
good to go.
Jacopo
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 3:49 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
This is now fixed in rev. 1300202
By the way: we will need to carefully review the way
ScriptHelper/ContextHelper are built (and especially how the
context is passed) in order to make sure the code is thread safe.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set
to UNKNOWN instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
-Adrian
On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hey Adrian,
a quick question before I dig into the details.
I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result
Map (for services) or result String (for Events) and I have
noticed that in the new implementation they are saved using the
ContextHelper.putResults method.
Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method?
It would be nice if this was done automatically by the framework
(service/event handlers) rather than the script itself... but I
am testing it with a service and I can't get the message back.
If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do
not worry I will figure it out.
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by
the refactoring?
Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I
will provide feedback about the gaps I see.
Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some
of the strings in Groovy will be expanded using the
FlexibleStringExpander rather than the Groovy GStrings... this
could be confusing when you are programming in Groovy.
I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely
EntityListIterators... but I can probably still do this in the
GroovyBaseScript.
The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can
modify it/extend it in any way they want.
Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they
want without first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of
this class. Do we all agree that it should stay clean and
light by providing simple access for common operations rather
than providing access to all the possible operations? I mean,
it should provide a mechanism to perform tasks in the most
common ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the calling
script should use the features provided natively by the
language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific
artifacts: entity engine, service engine, logging, etc.
As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can
simply delegate to the helper class:
Yes, I will
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Jacopo, I committed a generic, reusable version of this idea in rev 1299924. -Adrian On 3/8/2012 6:02 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi all, I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a modern version of Minilang. Please review my notes here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky :-) Regards, Jacopo PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Adrian, thank you for your work. What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it OFBiz friendly; now we have a reusable (? by other languages) version of it... my guess is that you did it because you liked the ideas in it (and I appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for other languages as well; and you may be right about this even if, as I initially mentioned, I would have preferred to complete my work, or at least add a bit more to it, test the DSL with more poc and Minilang--Groovy conversions before crystallizing it into an interface (one of the advantages in doing it in Groovy was that I could implement it without the need to build/restart the system)... now I have an interface and an implementation of it to take care of. But I don't want to complain (*) and I will review your work closely and see what I can do to use it properly in Groovy. This refactoring has introduced a series of limitations that I am determined to resolve and it will require some more study around Groovy and ideas to cope with them... I really want that, if we will ever adopt Groovy as our next language for the applications, it will look as perfect and simple and natural and integrated as possible: the natural language for OFBiz (like Minilang is now) rather than OFBiz implemented in Groovy. But before I proceed: what is the next step in your plan? What should go in the ScriptHelper interface? Am I allowed to enhance it based on my discoveries in my poc work (Minilang--Groovy) or should I consider it a final interface that doesn't have to be modified? Should I ask before enhancing it? I don't want to hijack your work. And more importantly: can I assume that this helper class will stay light and simple? I really don't want to see it transformed into a huge class containing a big amount of methods from different APIs... the fact that all languages will potentially use it and may wish to extend it with util methods that make sense to them concerns me a little bit (for example, a language with weak support for Map handling may need utils methods to manage Maps that could be useless for Groovy). Kind regards and again thank you, Jacopo (*) even if I find a bit annoying to see my work intercepted and re-routed while I was in the middle of it, I also appreciate the time and effort you spent on it and I really want to accept the fact that working in a community means that I have to blend and negotiate my own ideas and plans with the ones from others: sometimes it means that you get great help, sometimes it means that your own beautiful and perfect ideas are touched and rearranged to fit other's plans and other's beautiful ideas. I hope that the good attitude and flexibility I am trying to apply here will be also used by you and others when it will be time for you to accept other's proposals/changes On Mar 13, 2012, at 12:35 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: Jacopo, I committed a generic, reusable version of this idea in rev 1299924. -Adrian On 3/8/2012 6:02 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi all, I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a modern version of Minilang. Please review my notes here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky :-) Regards, Jacopo PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On 10/03/2012, at 12:28 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: On 3/9/2012 10:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I noticed how you set up the GroovyBaseScript class - so that the methods are accessible as if they were a part of the script. That approach might cause problems with name clash. I might write a method in my script that is the same as a DSL method, and then I get odd behavior I can't explain until I look through the DSL reference and discover a matching method name. Your method would be used instead. Exactly. You don't see a problem with that? For what it's worth the methods could be marked 'final' to avoid an accidental override. Regards Scott
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 9, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Sascha Rodekamp wrote: In the longterm future i would support Adrians approach to create an abstract implementation of the DSL. This would be great even in a shorter term future. I would suggest that we keep our DSL as simple and as clean possible: I am actually already forcing myself in these terms: * I do not add a DSL method because I think it may be useful; I have to prove that it is (by reviewing current usage and frequency in Minilang equivalent) * before adding a new DSL method I write a few services without it and when I identify a good recurring pattern I add it in my todo list of something that could become a method * when I implement the method, I keep it as simple as possible without adding additional stuff (arguments etc...) that is not proven to be useful * I expect that the final set of DSL method will be very small (not much bigger that it is now) and with very simple arguments * we should always use standard API for anything less common more complex: this is an advantage we have in groovy (over Minilang) In this way this Groovy specific DSL will not grow in complexity (at the end we will have very few lines of code) but it will be extensively tested over real world scenarios (e.g. converting some of the existing services); at that point it will be easy to convert the code to be used by all the scripting languages supporting JSR-223. And even if that would be impossible it would still be easy to create a different class for JSR-223 languages; then in ofbiz we could keep 2 service engines: * ofbizgroovy: this is the current groovy service engine that makes use of the DSL implemented by the class we have now (GroovyBaseScript) * script: this is the engine capable of running a service implemented on any scripting language supporting JSR-223 (including Groovy); this engine could inject a different generic version of DSL (e.g. GenericBaseScript or similar) (of course this would only make sense if a Groovy specific DSL provides some specific advantage to Groovy services over the generic one). In this way OFBiz will support virtually any language with a nice DSL support or Groovy with a special DSL support; this would still make a lot of sense because the code required to maintain a groovy specific engine (the one right now) is very small (a few lines of code). Jacopo
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
I noticed how you set up the GroovyBaseScript class - so that the
methods are accessible as if they were a part of the script. That
approach might cause problems with name clash. I might write a method in
my script that is the same as a DSL method, and then I get odd behavior
I can't explain until I look through the DSL reference and discover a
matching method name.
The approach I suggested earlier would solve that problem by putting the
DSL object in the script context (bindings). Instead of:
party = makeValue(Party);
use:
party = script.makeValue(Party);
Another advantage of this approach is the syntax remains the same across
languages. In JavaScript:
var party = script.makeValue(Party);
in Jython:
party = script.makeValue(Party);
etc...
If Groovy users REALLY REALLY want to make the DSL methods accessible as
if they were a part of the script, then we can have GroovyBaseScript
implement the DSL interface and delegate to the script object:
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ExecutionServiceException {
return binding.getVariable('script').makeValue(entityName);
}
-Adrian
On 3/8/2012 9:56 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 8, 2012, at 8:30 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I like the general concept, but I think it can be made generic so it is
reusable in other languages. That is what I was trying to describe earlier.
I looked at GroovyBaseScript and I don't see any reason why it needs to be made
Groovy-specific. Have the class access bindings from JSR-223 and Tah-dah! It
works for all scripting languages.
Thank you Adrian.
In this first step I was actually focused on the definition (and their design
as DSL) of all the implicit rules that make Minilang such a productive tool,
and I have used Groovy because it helps to implement this kind of patterns.
But if we can enhance and reuse the same class for all the JSR-223 compliant
scripting languages that would be nice.
Jacopo
-Adrian
On 3/8/2012 6:02 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hi all,
I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain
Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a
modern version of Minilang.
Please review my notes here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz
I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is
a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort
(reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky
:-)
Regards,
Jacopo
PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the
page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I noticed how you set up the GroovyBaseScript class - so that the methods are
accessible as if they were a part of the script. That approach might cause
problems with name clash. I might write a method in my script that is the
same as a DSL method, and then I get odd behavior I can't explain until I
look through the DSL reference and discover a matching method name.
Your method would be used instead.
The approach I suggested earlier would solve that problem by putting the DSL
object in the script context (bindings). Instead of:
party = makeValue(Party);
use:
party = script.makeValue(Party);
Another advantage of this approach is the syntax remains the same across
languages. In JavaScript:
var party = script.makeValue(Party);
in Jython:
party = script.makeValue(Party);
etc...
If Groovy users REALLY REALLY want to make the DSL methods accessible as if
they were a part of the script, then we can have GroovyBaseScript implement
the DSL interface and delegate to the script object:
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ExecutionServiceException {
return binding.getVariable('script').makeValue(entityName);
}
We can discuss how to extend the DSL to all the languages out there; for now I
would still like to concentrate on this implementation that makes use of
Groovy; when the effort will be (mostly) finalized we will have a good
implementation of a DSL for OFBiz and it will be easy to extend it to be usable
by all scripts. But at the moment I would like to avoid to loose any of the
Groovy abilities just because I want to support all languages: at the moment it
is not a big decision because the specific framework code for Groovy will be
limited to a few lines; the big decision will be to choose the preferred set of
languages for the future of OFBiz... that will be the real dependency/decision
(even if we will invoke them in a language independent way); currently we have:
* Minilang and Java for services
* Groovy (and widgets) for data preparation scripts
In the future we may want to use Groovy also for the service part (I don't
know); at that point OFBiz will have a huge dependency on Groovy code (this is
already true for the data preparation) and maintaining one small Groovy
dependent class in the framework to make the services/data scripts more elegant
would not worry me at all (when the next language will be chosen we will of
course have to convert this small class and then the huge amount of services
and data scripts).
Jacopo
-Adrian
On 3/8/2012 9:56 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 8, 2012, at 8:30 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I like the general concept, but I think it can be made generic so it is
reusable in other languages. That is what I was trying to describe earlier.
I looked at GroovyBaseScript and I don't see any reason why it needs to be
made Groovy-specific. Have the class access bindings from JSR-223 and
Tah-dah! It works for all scripting languages.
Thank you Adrian.
In this first step I was actually focused on the definition (and their
design as DSL) of all the implicit rules that make Minilang such a
productive tool, and I have used Groovy because it helps to implement this
kind of patterns.
But if we can enhance and reuse the same class for all the JSR-223 compliant
scripting languages that would be nice.
Jacopo
-Adrian
On 3/8/2012 6:02 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hi all,
I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain
Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act
like a modern version of Minilang.
Please review my notes here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz
I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1)
it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in
the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please
don't be too picky :-)
Regards,
Jacopo
PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in
the page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On 3/9/2012 10:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I noticed how you set up the GroovyBaseScript class - so that the methods are
accessible as if they were a part of the script. That approach might cause
problems with name clash. I might write a method in my script that is the same
as a DSL method, and then I get odd behavior I can't explain until I look
through the DSL reference and discover a matching method name.
Your method would be used instead.
Exactly. You don't see a problem with that?
The approach I suggested earlier would solve that problem by putting the DSL
object in the script context (bindings). Instead of:
party = makeValue(Party);
use:
party = script.makeValue(Party);
Another advantage of this approach is the syntax remains the same across
languages. In JavaScript:
var party = script.makeValue(Party);
in Jython:
party = script.makeValue(Party);
etc...
If Groovy users REALLY REALLY want to make the DSL methods accessible as if
they were a part of the script, then we can have GroovyBaseScript implement the
DSL interface and delegate to the script object:
Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ExecutionServiceException {
return binding.getVariable('script').makeValue(entityName);
}
We can discuss how to extend the DSL to all the languages out there
I'm not suggesting that we extend the DSL for any language. I'm
suggesting the opposite - keep it generic so all languages can use it.
I'm having a hard time understanding the push back on this. All I'm
suggesting is that we make the DSL a Java interface/class instead of a
Groovy script so the DSL can be reused in other scripting languages. Is
there something fundamentally wrong with that idea that I'm not
understanding?
; for now I would still like to concentrate on this implementation that makes
use of Groovy; when the effort will be (mostly) finalized we will have a good
implementation of a DSL for OFBiz and it will be easy to extend it to be usable
by all scripts. But at the moment I would like to avoid to loose any of the
Groovy abilities just because I want to support all languages: at the moment it
is not a big decision because the specific framework code for Groovy will be
limited to a few lines; the big decision will be to choose the preferred set of
languages for the future of OFBiz... that will be the real dependency/decision
(even if we will invoke them in a language independent way); currently we have:
* Minilang and Java for services
* Groovy (and widgets) for data preparation scripts
In the future we may want to use Groovy also for the service part (I don't
know); at that point OFBiz will have a huge dependency on Groovy code (this is
already true for the data preparation) and maintaining one small Groovy
dependent class in the framework to make the services/data scripts more elegant
would not worry me at all (when the next language will be chosen we will of
course have to convert this small class and then the huge amount of services
and data scripts).
Jacopo
-Adrian
On 3/8/2012 9:56 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 8, 2012, at 8:30 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I like the general concept, but I think it can be made generic so it is
reusable in other languages. That is what I was trying to describe earlier.
I looked at GroovyBaseScript and I don't see any reason why it needs to be made
Groovy-specific. Have the class access bindings from JSR-223 and Tah-dah! It
works for all scripting languages.
Thank you Adrian.
In this first step I was actually focused on the definition (and their design
as DSL) of all the implicit rules that make Minilang such a productive tool,
and I have used Groovy because it helps to implement this kind of patterns.
But if we can enhance and reuse the same class for all the JSR-223 compliant
scripting languages that would be nice.
Jacopo
-Adrian
On 3/8/2012 6:02 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hi all,
I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain
Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a
modern version of Minilang.
Please review my notes here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz
I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is
a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort
(reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky
:-)
Regards,
Jacopo
PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the
page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: Another advantage of this approach is the syntax remains the same across languages. I also have some doubts that a language independent DSL would be very useful: the main concept is to extend the language of your preference in a tr For example, in order to copy contents of maps from map to map in Groovy you can do something like: lookupFieldMap = parameters.subMap(['inventoryItemId', 'productId']) so for Groovy a utility method to transfer items from map to map would not be needed; but in another (less powerful) language it may be useful to have. Since we do not know what language the user will choose, it would be difficult to predict the useful methods in our DSL... and we may end up implementing a new language that is language independent; I want to avoid this and simply add the minimal amount of code to complete a specific language very powerful for what we need in OFBiz applications. A (super lightweight) DSL, specific to the language chosen by the community for the OFBiz applications, is the best choice in my opinion. Jacopo
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On 3/9/2012 11:30 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: Another advantage of this approach is the syntax remains the same across languages. I also have some doubts that a language independent DSL would be very useful: the main concept is to extend the language of your preference in a tr For example, in order to copy contents of maps from map to map in Groovy you can do something like: lookupFieldMap = parameters.subMap(['inventoryItemId', 'productId']) Now I understand the confusion - there is nothing DSL about copying a Map. In my mind the Domain in an OFBiz DSL is OFBiz - so the DSL adds OFBiz-specific extensions to the language. What you're describing would be handled by third-party libraries. -Adrian
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 9, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I'm not suggesting that we extend the DSL for any language. I'm suggesting the opposite - keep it generic so all languages can use it. I'm having a hard time understanding the push back on this. All I'm suggesting is that we make the DSL a Java interface/class instead of a Groovy script so the DSL can be reused in other scripting languages. Is there something fundamentally wrong with that idea that I'm not understanding? Adrian, no there is nothing wrong but I think we are not understanding each other's vision and goal. I see the work I am doing like a small plugin to add to Groovy a few things to make it a perfect language for OFBiz applications (like Minilang). This is similar to the concept of creating some custom freemarker transforms to simplify the creation of pages. So to me the logical step is: 1) select the language that is closest to what we need (or create one, like Minilang) 2) add to it what is missing (this is my small DSL) 3) then use it The effort I am doing is to see if Groovy + a small DSL can be a valid choice for the future of OFBiz. When this effort is done, if you (or anyone else) will see a potential to reuse the same DSL for other scripting languages, I would be more than happy to see it converted in a language independent way (this would be a trivial effort). What (I think) you are proposing is: 1) make OFBiz framework independent from any specific scripting language (apart from Java) 2) implement a DSL to write OFBiz applications in Java as a series of method calls to an helper class 3) the user will then chose the scripting language of his preference and then will use the DSL to write code What I don't see in your plan is what we want to do with the existing applications code and new code that will come: continue with Minilang, switch to Groovy, use a mix of languages? If my interpretation of your vision is correct, I have also some doubts about #2: the risk is that we implement a big api to do everything we think a potential user of an unknown language would need; the risk is that we loose the advantages of each specific language. Jacopo
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On 3/9/2012 11:48 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Mar 9, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I'm not suggesting that we extend the DSL for any language. I'm suggesting the opposite - keep it generic so all languages can use it. I'm having a hard time understanding the push back on this. All I'm suggesting is that we make the DSL a Java interface/class instead of a Groovy script so the DSL can be reused in other scripting languages. Is there something fundamentally wrong with that idea that I'm not understanding? Adrian, no there is nothing wrong but I think we are not understanding each other's vision and goal. I see the work I am doing like a small plugin to add to Groovy a few things to make it a perfect language for OFBiz applications (like Minilang). This is similar to the concept of creating some custom freemarker transforms to simplify the creation of pages. So to me the logical step is: 1) select the language that is closest to what we need (or create one, like Minilang) 2) add to it what is missing (this is my small DSL) 3) then use it The effort I am doing is to see if Groovy + a small DSL can be a valid choice for the future of OFBiz. When this effort is done, if you (or anyone else) will see a potential to reuse the same DSL for other scripting languages, I would be more than happy to see it converted in a language independent way (this would be a trivial effort). What (I think) you are proposing is: 1) make OFBiz framework independent from any specific scripting language (apart from Java) Exactly. 2) implement a DSL to write OFBiz applications in Java as a series of method calls to an helper class No, provide a helper class that developers can use to implement a DSL. 3) the user will then chose the scripting language of his preference and then will use the DSL to write code Yes, the developer can choose a scripting language. Whether or not the scripting language has been extended to a DSL by incorporating the helper class is a separate issue. What I don't see in your plan is what we want to do with the existing applications code and new code that will come: continue with Minilang, switch to Groovy, use a mix of languages? Anything we want. As long as we keep it generic, we are free to add/remove any scripting language. On the other hard, if we make it all Groovy-centric, then we have a lot of re-engineering to do if we decide to make a change. If my interpretation of your vision is correct, I have also some doubts about #2: the risk is that we implement a big api to do everything we think a potential user of an unknown language would need; the risk is that we loose the advantages of each specific language. Again, I think there is some confusion on what a DSL for OFBiz means. If it means we can add OFBiz-specific extensions to an existing language, then the API can be kept simple. -Adrian
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 9, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: What I don't see in your plan is what we want to do with the existing applications code and new code that will come: continue with Minilang, switch to Groovy, use a mix of languages? Anything we want. As long as we keep it generic, we are free to add/remove any scripting language. On the other hard, if we make it all Groovy-centric, then we have a lot of re-engineering to do if we decide to make a change. I really don't see how using a Groovy specific DSL for OFBiz would make the system more Groovy-centric than using Groovy with a generic/general purpose helper class. OFBiz (I mean the applications, not the framework) will become Groovy-centric if and when we will decide to use Groovy as the primary language to implement their services/events/scripts; that will be the big decision; the fact that all the Groovy services/events/scripts will mostly use a small DSL well suited to be integrated in Groovy to extend its language will actually make it easier for us to migrate out of Groovy: 1) convert the DSL class (100 lines of code?) into a generic helper class well suited for the new language (or discard it completely if the new language will come with the features we need ootb) 2) convert all the Groovy services/events/scripts to the new language The big effort will be #2 and not #1 and we are now discussing about #1. Jacopo If my interpretation of your vision is correct, I have also some doubts about #2: the risk is that we implement a big api to do everything we think a potential user of an unknown language would need; the risk is that we loose the advantages of each specific language. Again, I think there is some confusion on what a DSL for OFBiz means. If it means we can add OFBiz-specific extensions to an existing language, then the API can be kept simple. -Adrian
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 9, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/9/2012 11:30 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Another advantage of this approach is the syntax remains the same across
languages.
I also have some doubts that a language independent DSL would be very
useful: the main concept is to extend the language of your preference in a tr
For example, in order to copy contents of maps from map to map in Groovy you
can do something like:
lookupFieldMap = parameters.subMap(['inventoryItemId', 'productId'])
Now I understand the confusion - there is nothing DSL about copying a Map.
In my mind the Domain in an OFBiz DSL is OFBiz - so the DSL adds
OFBiz-specific extensions to the language.
What you're describing would be handled by third-party libraries.
I am simply saying that, if the goal is to be ready to switch from Groovy to
the next language that will come, and we have code like this:
lookupFieldMap = parameters.subMap(['inventoryItemId', 'productId'])
record = findOne('InventoryItem', lookupFieldMap)
then the difficult part will be to convert the first line, not the second.
I don't see how the following code:
lookupFieldMap = parameters.subMap(['inventoryItemId', 'productId'])
record = script.findOne('InventoryItem', lookupFieldMap)
would make it easier.
Jacopo
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 9, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: Your method would be used instead. Exactly. You don't see a problem with that? Frankly speaking I don't; I mean, it would be a problem and when we will code services etc. we will have to follow a few rules. But I could use the same exact argument against the proposal of passing to the context a script object with a reference to the helper method: I could assign to it a value; and the same applies to any object passed in the context of minilang. But again, I think that this would be an acceptable compromise and I don't see a relevant problem. Jacopo
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On 3/9/2012 1:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 9, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 3/9/2012 11:30 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Another advantage of this approach is the syntax remains the same across
languages.
I also have some doubts that a language independent DSL would be very useful:
the main concept is to extend the language of your preference in a tr
For example, in order to copy contents of maps from map to map in Groovy you
can do something like:
lookupFieldMap = parameters.subMap(['inventoryItemId', 'productId'])
Now I understand the confusion - there is nothing DSL about copying a Map. In my mind the
Domain in an OFBiz DSL is OFBiz - so the DSL adds OFBiz-specific extensions to the
language.
What you're describing would be handled by third-party libraries.
I am simply saying that, if the goal is to be ready to switch from Groovy to
the next language that will come, and we have code like this:
lookupFieldMap = parameters.subMap(['inventoryItemId', 'productId'])
record = findOne('InventoryItem', lookupFieldMap)
then the difficult part will be to convert the first line, not the second.
I don't see how the following code:
lookupFieldMap = parameters.subMap(['inventoryItemId', 'productId'])
record = script.findOne('InventoryItem', lookupFieldMap)
would make it easier.
If we're talking about Groovy specifically, then you are correct. The
difference is, in JavaScript it would not be possible to do this:
var record = script.findOne('InventoryItem', lookupFieldMap);
-Adrian
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 9, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Anne wrote: Do you intend for the DSL to work with events, as well as services? Anne, today I have completed my first pass for events; services and events now can use the same methods; I have added more details here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+DSL+for+Groovy+Services+and+Events Thanks, Jacopo
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Hi Jacopo, a nice step in the right direction, IMHO. I like it. Do you think it's possible to hack up a transpiler from Minilang to JacopoLang(tm), (i.e. like Coffescript has for Javascript), so that we can get rid of minilang entirely? Greetings, - Karl On 08.03.2012, at 19:02, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi all, I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a modern version of Minilang. Please review my notes here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky :-) Regards, Jacopo PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Le 08/03/2012 20:04, Karl Pitrich a écrit : Hi Jacopo, a nice step in the right direction, IMHO. I like it. Do you think it's possible to hack up a transpiler from Minilang to JacopoLang(tm), (i.e. like Coffescript has for Javascript), so that we can get rid of minilang entirely? Hi Karl, minilang won't be removed from OFBiz. It is widely used, and very useful. Look at the other thread Adrian started, there is a will to improve it ! Cheers, Greetings, - Karl On 08.03.2012, at 19:02, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi all, I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a modern version of Minilang. Please review my notes here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky :-) Regards, Jacopo PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the page in Confluence -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Hi Jacopo, Interesting, but then (question to all, and espaically Adrian who began on minilang overhaul ) should we continue the minilang overhaul or rather gather all efforts to completly, step by step, move all minilang scripts to this new possiblity? Jacques From: Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com Hi all, I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a modern version of Minilang. Please review my notes here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky :-) Regards, Jacopo PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
I like the general concept, but I think it can be made generic so it is reusable in other languages. That is what I was trying to describe earlier. I looked at GroovyBaseScript and I don't see any reason why it needs to be made Groovy-specific. Have the class access bindings from JSR-223 and Tah-dah! It works for all scripting languages. -Adrian On 3/8/2012 6:02 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi all, I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a modern version of Minilang. Please review my notes here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky :-) Regards, Jacopo PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Thanks Jacques. I actually don't know the answer but I will be surprised if everyone will agree to switch from Minilang to Groovy (at least not in the short term); by the way I still see a value in the effort of cleaning and making Minilang more consistent (maybe I would not spend much of my time on the effort, because at the moment I see a greater potential in Groovy, but I understand that it makes sense to invest time in that great language); even if at some point in the future we will decide to migrate out of Minilang, having a cleaner set of scripts will greatly help the migration. Jacopo On Mar 8, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Hi Jacopo, Interesting, but then (question to all, and espaically Adrian who began on minilang overhaul ) should we continue the minilang overhaul or rather gather all efforts to completly, step by step, move all minilang scripts to this new possiblity? Jacques From: Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com Hi all, I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a modern version of Minilang. Please review my notes here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky :-) Regards, Jacopo PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
On Mar 8, 2012, at 8:30 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I like the general concept, but I think it can be made generic so it is reusable in other languages. That is what I was trying to describe earlier. I looked at GroovyBaseScript and I don't see any reason why it needs to be made Groovy-specific. Have the class access bindings from JSR-223 and Tah-dah! It works for all scripting languages. Thank you Adrian. In this first step I was actually focused on the definition (and their design as DSL) of all the implicit rules that make Minilang such a productive tool, and I have used Groovy because it helps to implement this kind of patterns. But if we can enhance and reuse the same class for all the JSR-223 compliant scripting languages that would be nice. Jacopo -Adrian On 3/8/2012 6:02 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi all, I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a modern version of Minilang. Please review my notes here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky :-) Regards, Jacopo PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the page in Confluence
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Hi Jacopo That is an excellent start! I used to prefer minilang to java because it was so easy to do common tasks, but 2 things about it were so annoying that I now only use it for the simplest tasks. But with java I have to put up with all that extra code to get simple things done. Your groovy approach takes the best of minilang and the best of java, and combines them. My only concern with it is speed, but I suppose we could use ant to compile the groovy if there is a problem? A couple of thoughts (probably you have already thought of these): Change runService to runServiceSync, so there can also be a runServiceAsync. The design effort on this could combine with the current design effort on improving minilang. Adrian's new wiki page ( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Mini-language+Reference) could be used to guide what functionality the new groovy DSL needs. So there could (almost) be a one-to-one mapping between a minilang tag and a DSL function. Do you intend for the DSL to work with events, as well as services? Cheers, Anne. On 9 March 2012 05:02, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: Hi all, I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act like a modern version of Minilang. Please review my notes here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1) it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be too picky :-) Regards, Jacopo PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service mentioned in the page in Confluence -- Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd PO Box 2773 Cheltenham Vic 3192 Phone: (03) 9585 6788 Fax: (03) 9585 1086 Web: http://www.cohsoft.com.au/ Email: sa...@cohsoft.com.au Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Thank you Anne,
please see my comments inline:
On Mar 9, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Anne wrote:
Hi Jacopo
That is an excellent start! I used to prefer minilang to java because it
was so easy to do common tasks, but 2 things about it were so annoying that
I now only use it for the simplest tasks. But with java I have to put up
with all that extra code to get simple things done.
Your groovy approach takes the best of minilang and the best of java, and
combines them. My only concern with it is speed, but I suppose we could use
ant to compile the groovy if there is a problem?
It would be really nice to run some serious test on performance and compare the
two tools.
Currently the bytecode generated parsing Groovy is cached by OFBiz; but speed
is one aspect and we should also consider the usage of memory.
A couple of thoughts (probably you have already thought of these):
Change runService to runServiceSync, so there can also be a runServiceAsync.
Yes, this is a nice to have; I would prefer a slightly different naming like:
runService: sync calls
scheduleService or submitService or runServiceAsync: async calls
In this way we still have a very easy name, runService, for the most common
usage (calling services synchronously)
The design effort on this could combine with the current design effort on
improving minilang. Adrian's new wiki page (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Mini-language+Reference)
could be used to guide what functionality the new groovy DSL needs. So
there could (almost) be a one-to-one mapping between a minilang tag and a
DSL function.
That page (and effort) will be really useful to help this DSL grow in the right
direction; but in general Minilang, and most of all the huge amount of Minilang
code we have in OFBiz (some good, some bad) is really useful to decide what we
need in a Groovy DSL: in fact all the ideas I have tried to implement in this
poc are based on a careful review of Minilang (and my experience of Minilang
development).
I like the idea of preparing a page that shows the best practices for
implementing Minilang-equivalent code in Groovy: however, rather that
implementing a one-to-one method mapping between Minilang and this DSL I would
prefer to stay focused on the most common tasks only: all the other operations
can still be used using the standard support provided by delegator, dispatcher
etc... objects, or the various utils classes we have in OFBiz.
A natural and good way to decide what we should provide as a DSL and what
(probably) not is how frequent the feature is currently used in our Minilang
code (but of course feedback from developers using it would help greatly).
For example:
the call-service operation in Minilang can take an optional attribute
require-new-transaction: if it is set to true the service will be executed in
a separate transaction.
the equivalent Groovy (DSL for OFBiz) is runService and doesn't support this
option (it runs the service in the same transaction); even if it would be
trivial to enhance the DSL to support also a runService method that takes an
additional argument (or use a different name), after reviewing the existing
code I realized that we won't probably need this feature: in all the OFBiz
applications the require-new-transaction attribute is set to true for only
2 service calls; and for this rare occasions you can achieve the same in Groovy
using the dispatcher:
result1 = runService('someService', inputMap); // run the service in the
current transaction
result2 = dispatcher.runSync('someService', inputMap, 36000, true); // run in a
new transaction
if (ServiceUtil.isError(result)) return
error(ServiceUtil.getErrorMessage(result));
Of course we will have the flexibility to expand at will our DSL.
Another nice feature is that it is possible to extend the DSL base class and
add additional custom methods: everyone could customize the DSL and possibly
implement an industry specific (or company specific or project specific) DSL
very easily (something currently rather difficult in Minilang).
Do you intend for the DSL to work with events, as well as services?
Thanks for asking: yes my next task in my todo list is to enable it for events
and data preparation scripts.
Cheers,
Jacopo
Cheers,
Anne.
On 9 March 2012 05:02, Jacopo Cappellato
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote:
Hi all,
I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL (Domain
Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy services to act
like a modern version of Minilang.
Please review my notes here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz
I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider that 1)
it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and mental energy in the
effort (reaching simplicity is really complex task!)... so please don't be
too picky :-)
Regards,
Jacopo
PS:
Re: Groovy services and a DSL for OFBiz - a POC
Hi Jacopo,
great job! Groovy as DSL is very handsome (cause i can use a debugger :-)).
In the longterm future i would support Adrians approach to create an
abstract implementation of the DSL.
Some words to the groovy speed. In (theoretically) benchmarks groovy
is slower than java. Interesting would be a comparison between
mini-lang and groovy. I think the Groovy performance will be
absolutely sufficient because of the easy integration with Java. If
something’s too slow, I do it in Java. More important using the DSL is
the maintainability, developer productivity and the tool support.
Have a good day
Sascha
2012/3/9 Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com:
Thank you Anne,
please see my comments inline:
On Mar 9, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Anne wrote:
Hi Jacopo
That is an excellent start! I used to prefer minilang to java because it
was so easy to do common tasks, but 2 things about it were so annoying that
I now only use it for the simplest tasks. But with java I have to put up
with all that extra code to get simple things done.
Your groovy approach takes the best of minilang and the best of java, and
combines them. My only concern with it is speed, but I suppose we could use
ant to compile the groovy if there is a problem?
It would be really nice to run some serious test on performance and compare
the two tools.
Currently the bytecode generated parsing Groovy is cached by OFBiz; but speed
is one aspect and we should also consider the usage of memory.
A couple of thoughts (probably you have already thought of these):
Change runService to runServiceSync, so there can also be a runServiceAsync.
Yes, this is a nice to have; I would prefer a slightly different naming like:
runService: sync calls
scheduleService or submitService or runServiceAsync: async calls
In this way we still have a very easy name, runService, for the most common
usage (calling services synchronously)
The design effort on this could combine with the current design effort on
improving minilang. Adrian's new wiki page (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Mini-language+Reference)
could be used to guide what functionality the new groovy DSL needs. So
there could (almost) be a one-to-one mapping between a minilang tag and a
DSL function.
That page (and effort) will be really useful to help this DSL grow in the
right direction; but in general Minilang, and most of all the huge amount of
Minilang code we have in OFBiz (some good, some bad) is really useful to
decide what we need in a Groovy DSL: in fact all the ideas I have tried to
implement in this poc are based on a careful review of Minilang (and my
experience of Minilang development).
I like the idea of preparing a page that shows the best practices for
implementing Minilang-equivalent code in Groovy: however, rather that
implementing a one-to-one method mapping between Minilang and this DSL I
would prefer to stay focused on the most common tasks only: all the other
operations can still be used using the standard support provided by
delegator, dispatcher etc... objects, or the various utils classes we have in
OFBiz.
A natural and good way to decide what we should provide as a DSL and what
(probably) not is how frequent the feature is currently used in our Minilang
code (but of course feedback from developers using it would help greatly).
For example:
the call-service operation in Minilang can take an optional attribute
require-new-transaction: if it is set to true the service will be executed
in a separate transaction.
the equivalent Groovy (DSL for OFBiz) is runService and doesn't support
this option (it runs the service in the same transaction); even if it would
be trivial to enhance the DSL to support also a runService method that takes
an additional argument (or use a different name), after reviewing the
existing code I realized that we won't probably need this feature: in all the
OFBiz applications the require-new-transaction attribute is set to true
for only 2 service calls; and for this rare occasions you can achieve the
same in Groovy using the dispatcher:
result1 = runService('someService', inputMap); // run the service in the
current transaction
result2 = dispatcher.runSync('someService', inputMap, 36000, true); // run in
a new transaction
if (ServiceUtil.isError(result)) return
error(ServiceUtil.getErrorMessage(result));
Of course we will have the flexibility to expand at will our DSL.
Another nice feature is that it is possible to extend the DSL base class and
add additional custom methods: everyone could customize the DSL and possibly
implement an industry specific (or company specific or project specific) DSL
very easily (something currently rather difficult in Minilang).
Do you intend for the DSL to work with events, as well as services?
Thanks for asking: yes my next task in my todo list is to enable it for
events and data
