oops... please ignore my last one (doesn't make much sense)
Jacopo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> are you sure it is ok to create a ScriptHelper in this way:
>
> public static ScriptHelper createScriptHelper(ScriptContext context) {
> if (helperFactory != null) {
> return helperFactory.getInstance(context);
> }
> return null;
> }
>
> ?
>
> I think you need a new one for every new context... but maybe I am missing
> your intentions.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> I think that this is because of the way it is initialized:
>>
>> ScriptContext scriptContext = new SimpleScriptContext();
>> ScriptHelper helper = createScriptHelper(scriptContext);
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> Ok thanks... it doesn't work for me because the scriptType is set to
>>> UNKNOWN instead of SERVICE... I am debugging it now.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> org.ofbiz.service.engine.ScriptEngine.java, line 85 and below.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2012 10:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> Hey Adrian,
>>>>>
>>>>> a quick question before I dig into the details.
>>>>> I am using the success(..)/error(...) methods to get a result Map (for
>>>>> services) or result String (for Events) and I have noticed that in the
>>>>> new implementation they are saved using the ContextHelper.putResults
>>>>> method.
>>>>> Who is supposed to call the ContextHelper.getResults() method? It would
>>>>> be nice if this was done automatically by the framework (service/event
>>>>> handlers) rather than the script itself... but I am testing it with a
>>>>> service and I can't get the message back.
>>>>> If you could show me a code snippet it would help... if not do not worry
>>>>> I will figure it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 7:46 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could you share with the rest of us the limitations caused by the
>>>>>>>> refactoring?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Definitely: I will review, study and use the new code and I will
>>>>>>> provide feedback about the gaps I see.
>>>>>> Oh. I thought you were talking about the ScriptUtil refactoring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing that I am not sure I like is the fact that now some of the
>>>>>>> strings in Groovy will be expanded using the FlexibleStringExpander
>>>>>>> rather than the Groovy GStrings... this could be confusing when you are
>>>>>>> programming in Groovy.
>>>>>>> I was also planning to use closures to manage nicely
>>>>>>> EntityListIterators... but I can probably still do this in the
>>>>>>> GroovyBaseScript.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The work I committed is just a springboard - anyone can modify
>>>>>>>> it/extend it in any way they want.
>>>>>>> Ok, this is good... and dangerous if anyone will add what they want
>>>>>>> without first agreeing/understanding on the purpose of this class. Do
>>>>>>> we all agree that it should stay clean and light by providing simple
>>>>>>> access for common operations rather than providing access to all the
>>>>>>> possible operations? I mean, it should provide a mechanism to perform
>>>>>>> tasks in the most common ways; for special (less frequent) tasks the
>>>>>>> calling script should use the features provided natively by the
>>>>>>> language and the standard API (delegator/dispatcher/etc...).
>>>>>> I agree. Let's keep the API limited to OFBiz-specific artifacts: entity
>>>>>> engine, service engine, logging, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I mentioned previously, the GroovyBaseScript class can simply
>>>>>>>> delegate to the helper class:
>>>>>>> Yes, I will re-implement it following this design and let you know how
>>>>>>> it goes; but we will still need the Groovy service engine and Groovy
>>>>>>> event handlers... in order to keep the architecture clean should we
>>>>>>> start to think to them as extensions for the applications only? I mean
>>>>>>> that they could be part of the future release of "OFBiz Applications"
>>>>>>> and not part of the future release "OFBiz Framework". In this way the
>>>>>>> dependency and custom Groovy code will all be in the Applications (if
>>>>>>> they will be reimplemented in Groovy) and the framework will stay clean
>>>>>>> and light.
>>>>>> I was planning on having mini-lang's MethodContext extend ScriptHelper
>>>>>> so all scripting languages (including mini-lang) are running on the same
>>>>>> code base.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking all of this will tie up rather nicely once we have a
>>>>>> reduced framework. Scripting can be its own component that runs on top
>>>>>> of the new framework. Higher-level applications can then extend the
>>>>>> scripting component
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> abstract class GroovyBaseScript extends Script implements ScriptHelper
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> private final ScriptHelper helper;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Map runService(String serviceName, Map inputMap) throws
>>>>>>>> ScriptException {
>>>>>>>> return helper.runService(serviceName, inputMap);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Map makeValue(String entityName) throws ScriptException {
>>>>>>>> return helper.makeValue(entityName);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 5:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Adrian, thank you for your work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What I was writing was actually an extension to Groovy for making it
>>>>>>>>> OFBiz friendly; now we have a "reusable" (? by other languages)
>>>>>>>>> version of it... my guess is that you did it because you liked the
>>>>>>>>> ideas in it (and I appreciate it) and you thought it was useful for
>>>>>>>>> other languages as well; and you may be right about this even if, as
>>>>>>>>> I initially mentioned, I would have preferred to complete my work, or
>>>>>>>>> at least add a bit more to it, test the DSL with more poc and
>>>>>>>>> Minilang-->Groovy conversions before crystallizing it into an
>>>>>>>>> interface (one of the advantages in doing it in Groovy was that I
>>>>>>>>> could implement it without the need to build/restart the system)...
>>>>>>>>> now I have an interface and an implementation of it to take care of.
>>>>>>>>> But I don't want to complain (*) and I will review your work closely
>>>>>>>>> and see what I can do to use it properly in Groovy. This refactoring
>>>>>>>>> has introduced a series of limitations that I am determined to
>>>>>>>>> resolve and it will require some more study around Groovy and ideas
>>>>>>>>> to cope with them... I really want that, if we will ever adopt Groovy
>>>>>>>>> as our next language for the applications, it will look as perfect
>>>>>>>>> and simple and natural and integrated as possible: the natural
>>>>>>>>> language for OFBiz (like Minilang is now) rather than OFBiz
>>>>>>>>> implemented in Groovy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But before I proceed: what is the next step in your plan? What should
>>>>>>>>> go in the ScriptHelper interface? Am I allowed to enhance it based on
>>>>>>>>> my discoveries in my poc work (Minilang-->Groovy) or should I
>>>>>>>>> consider it a final interface that doesn't have to be modified?
>>>>>>>>> Should I ask before enhancing it? I don't want to hijack your work.
>>>>>>>>> And more importantly: can I assume that this helper class will stay
>>>>>>>>> light and simple? I really don't want to see it transformed into a
>>>>>>>>> huge class containing a big amount of methods from different APIs...
>>>>>>>>> the fact that all languages will potentially use it and may wish to
>>>>>>>>> extend it with util methods that make sense to them concerns me a
>>>>>>>>> little bit (for example, a language with weak support for Map
>>>>>>>>> handling may need utils methods to manage Maps that could be useless
>>>>>>>>> for Groovy).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards and again thank you,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (*) even if I find a bit annoying to see my work intercepted and
>>>>>>>>> re-routed while I was in the middle of it, I also appreciate the time
>>>>>>>>> and effort you spent on it and I really want to accept the fact that
>>>>>>>>> working in a community means that I have to blend and negotiate my
>>>>>>>>> own ideas and plans with the ones from others: sometimes it means
>>>>>>>>> that you get great help, sometimes it means that your own beautiful
>>>>>>>>> and perfect ideas are touched and rearranged to fit other's plans and
>>>>>>>>> other's beautiful ideas.
>>>>>>>>> I hope that the good attitude and flexibility I am trying to apply
>>>>>>>>> here will be also used by you and others when it will be time for you
>>>>>>>>> to accept other's proposals/changes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 12:35 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I committed a generic, reusable version of this idea in rev 1299924.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 6:02 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have just completed my first pass in the implementation of a DSL
>>>>>>>>>>> (Domain Specific Language) for OFBiz that can be used by Groovy
>>>>>>>>>>> services to act like a modern version of Minilang.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please review my notes here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Groovy+Services+and+DSL+for+OFBiz
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to your comments and feedback but please consider
>>>>>>>>>>> that 1) it is a work in progress, 2) I spent a lot of time and
>>>>>>>>>>> mental energy in the effort (reaching simplicity is really complex
>>>>>>>>>>> task!)... so please don't be too picky :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PS: if you find it useful, I can commit the Groovy service
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the page in Confluence
>>>
>>
>
