Are there any examples in OFBiz right now where you think that using Java or groovy would be easier to write and maintain than the simple-method it is implemented in?
-David On Feb 22, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >>
