Hi Gil,
I don't think we need to go as far as creating a new GroovyBaseClass.
Deprecating GroovyBaseScript:success is still preferred in my opinion,
replacing it with serviceSuccess and scriptSuccess. These two methods could
return separate types which extend from Map and help make it clear whether
the method in the groovyScript is intended by the author to implement a
service or an event handler.
In the rare cases of a current groovy method being used to implement both a
service and an event handler, I think we could do something similar to this
contrived example:
/////////////////////////
// GroovyBaseScript.groovy
interface ServiceResponse extends Map<String, String>
interface EventResponse extends Map<String, String>
ServiceResponse serviceSuccess(....) { ... }
ServiceResponse serviceFail(...) {...}
ServiceResponse serviceError(...) {...}
EventResponse eventSuccess(...) {...}
EventResponse eventFail(...) {...}
EventResponse eventError(...) {...}
//////////////////
// ExampleServiceAndEventImpl.groovy
// Here is the main implementation, initially implemented as a service
handler
ServiceResponse countProducts () {
...
...
return serviceSuccess([stock: 42])
// Here is the event handler implementation, leveraging the service
implementation as an adapter.
EventResponse countProductsEventHandler () {
ServiceResponse sr = countProducts();
return eventSuccess("Found ${sr.stock} products");
}
The return type of the above methods help identify whether we are dealing
with a service or event handler. If conversion is needed from one type to
the other, an adapter specific to the business logic can decide how to map
between EventResponses and ServiceResponses.
Thanks,
Dan.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 at 14:27, Gil Portenseigne <gil.portensei...@nereide.fr>
wrote:
> Hello I got a quick look about it, having two separate class means
> having two distinct groovy DSL and need lot of modification that IMO are
> not worth the complexity for this subject.
>
> I now only wonder, is it that bad too keep that one exception (about
> untyped return) for GroovyBaseScript::success ?
>
> Gil
>
> Le 26/04/2023 à 09:49, Gil Portenseigne a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > I like the idea that the developer do not have to sync about which
> > method to use.
> >
> > If I understand well what Michael envision, i.e. to use for event a
> > new GroovyBaseEvent class, and for services/scripts a GroovyBaseScript
> > class, that both extends a common class for the common code, should be
> > one way to allow this usage.
> >
> > But I don't know about IDE integration behavior of such a solution...
> >
> > Do you think that is worth a look ?
> >
> > I will just add that there is a chance that project implementation are
> > using groovy script as the event target (I know some ;) )
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gil
> >
> > Le 20/04/2023 à 17:13, Michael Brohl a écrit :
> >> To have it even more clear, I would separate logic for events and
> >> services.
> >>
> >> The GroovyBaseScript in the service engine package should only be
> >> used for services and there should be another one for events, if
> >> really needed. Mixing both together is bad practice IMO. There seem
> >> to be only 7 controller entries using a groovy script as the event
> >> target.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Michael Brohl
> >>
> >> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 20.04.23 um 16:49 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
> >>> Hi Daniel,
> >>>
> >>> I dont think there is a knowledge about methods being both services
> >>> and events. I think there are not (much?) such cases.
> >>> Being acquainted to OFBiz logs I did not check the trunk demo log
> >>> content (now in Docker);
> >>> so I wonder if there are such other cases than
> >>> CommunicationEventServices::sendEmail (colon notation is available
> >>> in Groovy 3)
> >>> that bots and demo uses could have generated.
> >>>
> >>> I tend to agree about having GroovyBaseScript::success deprecated
> >>> and replaced with methods GroovyBaseScript::scriptSuccess
> >>> GroovyBaseScript::serviceSuccess and GroovyCaseScript::eventSuccess
> >>>
> >>> I'm not yet acquainted with Codernarc rules, but the changes in
> >>> GroovyBaseScript seem straightforward.
> >>> And (hopefully) this should not be a big deal to change accordingly
> >>> in scripts methods with the help of Codenarc, right ?
> >>>
> >>> My 2 cts
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>> Le 19/04/2023 à 18:37, Daniel Watford a écrit :
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> In my opinion, the semantics of calling an event handler vs a service
> >>>> implementation are different, albeit similar enough that most
> >>>> handler/implementation authors wouldn't necessarily care how the
> >>>> code was
> >>>> called.
> >>>>
> >>>> The untyped nature of Groovy had allowed a certain degree of
> >>>> flexibility in
> >>>> code that GroovyBaseScript#success could be relied upon to prepare a
> >>>> response appropriate to the calling conventions of an event handler or
> >>>> service implementation. However over the last decade, possibly
> >>>> driven by
> >>>> increased use of linters/static analysers, we have seen a push back
> >>>> towards
> >>>> explicit typing, particularly on public methods.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we continue to adopt the guidance from static analysers and apply
> >>>> explicit typing to public methods in our groovy code, then we need
> >>>> to avoid
> >>>> the black box approach of GroovyBaseScript#success figuring out what
> >>>> calling conventions (i.e. event or service) are in play and,
> >>>> instead, a
> >>>> groovy method should be intentionally written as either a service
> >>>> or event
> >>>> handler.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we have cases where a groovy method is used to provide
> >>>> implementations
> >>>> for both a service and an event handler, then we can employ a thin
> >>>> adapter
> >>>> layer to convert the result type between the two calling
> >>>> conventions. Do we
> >>>> know if many such cases currently exist in OFBiz?
> >>>>
> >>>> My preference would be to see GroovyBaseScript#success deprecated and
> >>>> replaced with methods along the lines of
> >>>> GroovyBaseScript#scriptSuccess and
> >>>> GroovyCaseScript#eventSuccess that return a Map<String, Object> and
> >>>> String
> >>>> respectively.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Dan.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 at 16:44, Jacques Le
> >>>> Roux<jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At OFBIZ-12801, we had a discussion with Daniel and Gil about the
> >>>>> described issue (last comments there)
> >>>>> We are unsure of the best solution, so this thread to discuss and
> >>>>> decide.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As Gil reported, Jacopo's comment of the related commit* contains
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <<these helper methods have been enhanced in order to be used by
> >>>>> groovy method executed as services or events in a transparent way.>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What would be your opinion about a best solution?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TIA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1298908
> >>>>>
>
--
Daniel Watford
