David:
IMO, what you say is true. When used as originally intended Simple
Methods can't be beat. It is when Simple Methods are put together into
complex services, that do more than data mapping, that this theory of
operation starts to fall apart.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
Regards,
Ruth
David E Jones wrote:
Simple methods are intended to be good for a few things for data mapping
operations (which is the bulk of what needs to be done in business
applications), including:
1. fewer lines than Java/groovy
2. each line less complex than equivalent Java or groovy
3. scripts from different developers are much more consistent
Yes, you're correct that XML makes things more verbose. However, that doesn't
generally increase the time it takes to work with the code (writing or
maintaining). Because the overall complexity is less and the verbose nature of
it makes more explicit, I'd argue that it is significantly more efficient and
simple for developers to both write and maintain data mapping code using simple
methods than using a free-form script.
-David
On Feb 22, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Jacques, minilang is quick, but being xml it's verbose. Groovy would be
much more concise wouldn't it - especially if a DSL was created?
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
For the same reason Java is not used. Once you get a grasp on it you understand
why it's there: productivity.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Mini-Language+Guide#Mini-LanguageGuide-introduction
Jacques
From: "Christopher Snow" <[email protected]>
I was wondering why groovy is not used for service code instead on minilang?
Any thoughts?
Many thanks,
Chris
