I absolutely agree with you and that was the first option I tried out.
However, quickly gave up because it would give me an exception when I would
call the service (via RMI) that some class (most probably some groovy class)
was not serializable.

Regards

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Scott Gray <[email protected]>wrote:

> I know you said not to mention groovy but you could always just write your
> service in groovy using standard java and then drop it into a java file when
> you're done.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> On 29/06/2010, at 1:46 PM, Muhammad Aamir wrote:
>
> > Actually I am aware of minilang and have used it earlier. The reason I
> want
> > to minimize the use of it (in addition to its limitation) is that I don't
> > want to release the source code of my application.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:47 PM, James McGill <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Muhammad Aamir <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is minilang a complete replacement of Java language?
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is not the intention of Minilang.  It's a matter of opinion as to
> >> whether Minilang is easier to maintain than the eqivalent Java.
> >> Minilang is excellent for much of the work that is commonly done in the
> >> service layer, especially simple create and update operations, getting
> >> lists
> >> using variables that are automatically bound from the context, checking
> >> permissions, etc.  This kind of thing is very common in OFBiz, so there
> are
> >> numerous examples.
> >>
> >> Since you have <call-bsh> in minilang, you also have the option of using
> >> java grammar inline.   There are plenty of things that are simple to do
> in
> >> Java that might be very difficult or impossible to do in Minilang, and
> in
> >> my
> >> opinion there are Minilang routines in the OFBiz distribution that
> appear
> >> to
> >> have gone through enough evolution, that they would be better, in the
> long
> >> run, ported to Java.
> >>
> >> --
> >> James McGill
> >> Phoenix AZ
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to