On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > David: > There are one or more Mini-language based services that are strung together > before processing ever gets to the Java sendMail method call. I had to > disable those services to get the sendMail service to work correctly for my > situation. > > I'm not saying the Mini-language is bad. I'm saying that in certain > situations such as the stringing together of services (SECAs) it is really > hard to figure out what is going on. Cuts into productivity and it effects > long-term product maintainability.
So, in other words, that has nothing to do with simple-methods versus Java? > I tried using the Mini Language to create some Simple Services and I found > that in each situation, CRUD operations were only the tip of the ice-berg as > far as developing applications was concerned. My applications do much more > than update database records. To go beyond CRUD (and simple HTML forms to > update the database) is very cumbersome using the Mini Language. Are we back to square one, looking for an example of a simple-method that you think would be better in Java or groovy? -David > > Again, just my 2 cents. > > Regards, > Ruth > David E Jones wrote: >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> >>
