The sendMail service itself is written in Java, and is a bit of a doosie. I'm not sure if that's because it's written in Java per-se, it's maybe just a bit service that does a bunch of stuff (ie doesn't really mean it's bad just because it's in Java).
-David On Feb 22, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > I think it was just a plain old fashion sendMail service call. It was a few > months ago, so I don't remember exactly. > > David E Jones wrote: >> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> >>
