When you say "send mail seca" do you mean the sendMailFromTemplateSetting simple-method in the EmailServices.xml file? That one looks pretty straightforward to me... so I'm guessing you mean a different simple-method...
-David On Feb 22, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > Hi David: > > Off the top of my head, the send mail seca would be much easier to follow if > it were coded in Java or groovy. I had a heck of a time figuring out why I > was getting HTML formatting errors (on perfectly valid HTML) and trying to > follow the sequence of events. In fact, I just ended up disabling the service > because it just took too much time to figure out. > > You asked. > Ruth > > > > David E Jones wrote: >> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >>
