Replacing FSE with Groovy is a bad idea. Adam and I optimized FSE so
that it is very lightweight and fast. I also optimized the UEL
integration so there is very little overhead in the evaluation process.
Switching everything to Groovy will slow things down and increase memory
usage. Also keep in mind that Groovy creates a class for every script,
so we will run out of permgen space again.
I think a wiser strategy would be to make mini-lang as feature complete
as possible, and include a from-script attribute for any feature gaps.
In other words, use from-script as a last resort - because it is costly.
-Adrian
On 3/6/2012 8:53 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 6, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I don't understand what you mean by supporting a limited number of types.
Currently, mini-lang supports any type - thanks to the conversion framework.
The conversion framework is fine; I was thinking that we could implicitly (by
default) treat in Minilang all the numbers as BigDecimals, all the strings as
GStrings/Expandable Strings; where special conversions are required than the
type can be specified.
I like the idea of changing the from-field attribute to from. I would like to
see a from-script attribute added:
<set field="field4" from-script="groovy: parameters.inputField1 + 10"/><!-- Use
Groovy -->
and why not:
<set field="field4" from="parameters.inputField1"/><!-- Use Groovy internally:
refactor OFBiz custom code to delegate on Groovy the evaluation of simple assignments; this could potentially
replace FlexibleStringExpander related code -->
<set field="field4" from="groovy: parameters.inputField1 + 10"/><!-- Use Groovy explicitly to evaluate
the expression (use the same "from" attribute instead of a separate "from-script")-->
<set field="field4" from="parameters.inputField1 + 10"/><!-- Use Groovy (by
default, configurable) to evaluate the expression-->
<set field="field4" from="beanshell: parameters.inputField1 + 10"/><!-- Use
Beanshell to evaluate the expression-->
?
Then we can remove script support from expressions, which will eliminate ugly
hacks like:
<set field="field4" value="${groovy: parameters.inputField1 + 10}"/>
+1
Jacopo
-Adrian
On 3/6/2012 7:31 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I am a big fan of Minilang too.
The "evolution" strategy that I would like to see implemented for Minilang is
actually the same one I would liketo see applied to OFBiz framework in general: review
the current usage of the tool, fix existing usage for consistency (upgrade old code to
use newer mechanisms offered by the tool), get rid of unused or old mechanisms in the
attempt to slim down the size of the framework code, unify/simplify mechanisms based on
lesson learned; all of this could be useful even to prepare the future migration to a
different tool (e.g. Groovy).
I know that it is very vague and doesn't add much to this thread but I like the
approach suggested by Adrian.
In my opinion, a good way to define a new version of the "set" operation could be that of
analyzing how we are currently using the operation in OFBiz: as a starting point we could start by
searching all occurrences of "<set " string in OFBiz, then review them and see different
patterns; discuss and define the few ones that we like more, convert all code to use them
consistently, then (or in the same phase) define the new element to better implement the patterns that
we like.
And now I am switching to the "brainstorming" mode :-)
Kind regards,
Jacopo
========================
<brainstorming>
I would like to have a "set" operation that implements some of the ideas of the
"configure by exception" concept.
As regards the type supported, but pending the review of existing usage, we may
consider to only support these:
* Object
* List
* Map
* BigDecimal/BigInteger (all numbers in Minilang should be treated as
BigDecimal; no support for Integer, Float etc...)
* String (expander i.e. the equivalent of GString in Groovy)
* a date object
Then we could get rid of the "from-field" attribute and replace it with a
"from" attribute that can take as input a single field (as it is now) or an expression;
some examples (all the following are evaluated using Groovy except where a different language is
specified i.e. default scripting language):
<set field="field1" from="parameters.inputField1"/> // field1 will have the
same type of inputField1
<set field="field2" from="parameters.inputField1 + parameters.inputField2"/>
// if inputField1 and inputField2 are numbers then field2 will be the BigDecimal sum of the two
<set field="field3" from="parameters.inputField1 * 10"/>
<set field="field4" from="script:bsh parameters.inputField1 + 10"/> // use
Beanshell
<set field="field5" from="parameters.inputField1" type="BigDecimal"/> // if
inputField1 is a string representation of a number we can convert with the explicit definition of the type
For the constant values (I am not sure if it is a good idea, but for now I will
throw it out):
<set field="stringField" value="This is a string"/>
<set field="stringField" value="This is a string with a ${variable}"/>
// the following two are equivalent
<set field="bigDecimalField" value="100"/> // the system attempt to parse
"100" as a number first (BigDecimal) and then as a string
<set field="bigDecimalField" value="100" type="BigDecimal"/>
<set field="stringField" value="100" type="String"/> // treat the field as a
string
</brainstorming>
On Mar 5, 2012, at 9:07 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I am not one of those people. I use mini-lang almost exclusively.
-Adrian
On 3/5/2012 7:46 PM, Anil Patel wrote:
Adrian,
Thanks for starting this thread.
While we all love mini-lang, I am wondering if we should really ask ourselves
if we really want to overhaul mini-lang or should we consider alternates. From
what I know, Not many people like to build application using mini lang. Many
end up using Java or Groovy.
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
On Mar 5, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Mini-language has evolved a lot over the years. Most of the development has
occurred on an as-needed basis, so there is no clear design or implementation -
things just get tacked on over time.
A recent discussion has opened up the possibility to rework the
mini-language<set> element. From my perspective, that task is long overdue.
Also, the schemas are out of date, and they are unnecessarily complicated. So,
those need a thorough going over.
While we are at it, why don't we create a draft design document based on the
current implementation, and then use it to look for other ways mini-language
can be improved? We can all offer suggestions and comments, agree on a final
design, finalize the draft, and then implement it in code. The design document
then becomes the developer's reference.
What do you think?
-Adrian