Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

Hi Michael, Okay, I didn't look at that page. Yes, it should be sufficient. Thanks. Sincerely, James On 2017-05-08 16:54 (+0800), Michael Brohl wrote: > Hi James, > > thanks for your suggestion. That's exactly what I did in [1], which pops > up a warning. > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

Hi James, thanks for your suggestion. That's exactly what I did in [1], which pops up a warning. Don't you think it is sufficient? Best regards, Michael [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Mini+Language+-+minilang+-+simple-method+-+Reference Am 08.05.17 um 05:34

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

Hi all, Since this will be an on-going effort, it would be useful to post the links, mentioned below, on the confluence header (together with the notice "Access to add and change pages is restricted"). Will help to remind both user and developer groups using confluence. Don't want to see new

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

Dear all, just an update for this topic. I have created a Jira issue to track the efforts. [1] A first version of the corresponding wiki page to document the rationale and next steps is now in Confluence. [2] If you want to contribute, please drop me a line. Any help for the next steps is

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

Thanks for the reference, Jacques. Am 29.03.17 um 18:12 schrieb Jacques Le Roux: +1 For those interested, thanks to Jacopo, we have already a beginning of a Groovy DSL https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+DSL+for+OFBiz+business+logic

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

Good idea, thanks Taher! Cheers, Michael Am 29.03.17 um 19:47 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb: +1 I recommend that you put somewhere in the wiki page the _reasons_ why minilang is deprecated (the ones you listed in this thread). On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Michael Brohl

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 I recommend that you put somewhere in the wiki page the _reasons_ why minilang is deprecated (the ones you listed in this thread). On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Michael Brohl wrote: > Hi all, > > thank you for your replies and comments to the proposal to

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 For those interested, thanks to Jacopo, we have already a beginning of a Groovy DSL https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+DSL+for+OFBiz+business+logic https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+Tutorial+-+A+Beginners+Development+Guide

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Michael Brohl wrote: > [...] > I therefore like to propose to deprecate the mini lang implementation > which means: > > 1. there will be no new implementations based on mini lang accepted to go > into the code base. > > 2. mini lang and

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

Hi all, thank you for your replies and comments to the proposal to deprecate minilang in OFBiz. We had mostly +1's, some questions and remarks and no -1's. It was not an official vote but I think we can take these results as a confirmation that the community wants to follow the proposal,

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 Rishi Solanki Manager, Enterprise Software Development HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. Direct: +91-9893287847 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Julien NICOLAS wrote: > +1 > > > > On 27/02/2017 13:44, Nicolas Malin wrote: > >> +1 >> >> I also

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 On 27/02/2017 13:44, Nicolas Malin wrote: +1 I also agree to replace the minilang by groovy dsl for service. For screen a prefer wait a good equivalent solution for simple case. Nicolas Le 18/02/2017 à 10:17, Michael Brohl a écrit : Hi everyone, we are currently working hard to make

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 Thanks for the well thought proposal. Best regards, Pranay Pandey HotWax Systems http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Michael Brohl wrote: > Hi everyone, > > we are currently working hard to make OFBiz a modern, quality, robust and >

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 I also agree to replace the minilang by groovy dsl for service. For screen a prefer wait a good equivalent solution for simple case. Nicolas Le 18/02/2017 à 10:17, Michael Brohl a écrit : Hi everyone, we are currently working hard to make OFBiz a modern, quality, robust and easy to use

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 - Best Regards, Swapnil M Mane On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Michael Brohl wrote: > Hi everyone, > > we are currently working hard to make OFBiz a modern, quality, robust and > easy to use framework. > There are several ongoing initiatives like refactoring the

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1. -邮件原件- 发件人: Michael Brohl [mailto:michael.br...@ecomify.de] 发送时间: 2017年2月18日 17:17 收件人: dev@ofbiz.apache.org 主题: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang Hi everyone, we are currently working hard to make OFBiz a modern, quality, robust and easy to use framework. There are several ongoing

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 Thanks Michael for the proposal ! I've got nothing to add to your mail ;) ! Gil On 18/02/2017 10:17, Michael Brohl wrote: Hi everyone, we are currently working hard to make OFBiz a modern, quality, robust and easy to use framework. There are several ongoing initiatives like refactoring

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 Thank you Michael for the well thought proposal. Jacopo On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Michael Brohl wrote: > Hi everyone, > > we are currently working hard to make OFBiz a modern, quality, robust and > easy to use framework. > There are several ongoing

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 I've been waiting for this since about 4 years ;) Debugging was always a pain and apart from simple "update my entity" services I did never see a big advantage in this. Apart from that it was always a barrier for pleople new to OFBiz. -- View this message in context:

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

Hi Pierre, my proposal was to deprecate mini lang, not to drop xml based definitions and configurations as a whole. Regards, Michael Am 18.02.17 um 13:12 schrieb Pierre Smits: I am inclined to say +1. But I see some concerns rising (with respect to some suggestions) with new additions,

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

Le 18/02/2017 à 13:12, Pierre Smits a écrit : I am inclined to say +1. But I see some concerns rising (with respect to some suggestions) with new additions, e.g: 1. No more simple (entity-auto) services, ecas and secas in xml? Or only no more complex ones? Do we opt for Java, Groovy,

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

I am inclined to say +1. But I see some concerns rising (with respect to some suggestions) with new additions, e.g: 1. No more simple (entity-auto) services, ecas and secas in xml? Or only no more complex ones? Do we opt for Java, Groovy, or leave that to the discretion of each

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 I have wondered how hard it would be to create an isomorphic conversion between minilang and a Groovy DSL - bidirectional conversion between the two. That would mean we could automatically convert the existing minilang to the DSL, and if there is anyone who prefers minilang, they could convert

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

I agree with both of you. The recent FinAccount deadlock issue reported on dev ML is one example of the type of issues which would be easier to deal with with a Turing complete language or at least a better DSL. My 2 cts Jacques Le 18/02/2017 à 10:25, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : +1 let's

Re: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang

+1 let's maintain but not add more to the pile, and try to replace everything written in minilang with other languages over time. I think your arguments and proposal are well founded and would really improve the health of this project. On Feb 18, 2017 12:17 PM, "Michael Brohl"