+1.
-----邮件原件----- 发件人: Michael Brohl [mailto:michael.br...@ecomify.de] 发送时间: 2017年2月18日 17:17 收件人: dev@ofbiz.apache.org 主题: [PROPOSAL] deprecate mini lang Hi everyone, we are currently working hard to make OFBiz a modern, quality, robust and easy to use framework. There are several ongoing initiatives like refactoring the core, UX, changing the build and plugin system and cleaning up the javadocs, only to mention a few. In mini lang I see another part of our project which needs a refactoring/change. Here are some reasons: - Programming in XML is hard to deal with when it comes to refactoring. - The "code" cannot be debugged and is hard to review and maintain. - It is slower because of the overhead of parsing and processing XML documents - It is highly verbose, even so more than Java! - It is difficult to reason about because everything appears as a string (variables, maps, objects, etc ...) which makes it very difficult to know where something was declared or modified - It is highly error prone and brittle (again due to string declarations) - It is not a full programming language (unlike groovy, or any other language that supports a DSL). Thus it has many limitations that forces the developer to write many more lines of code to achieve the same result. - The code is not reusable (limitation of the DSL) - The code is not composable (limitation of the DSL) - Minilang depends on a lot of Java constructs (implementations, not interfaces) that require refactoring, making any improvements to the core API more challenging - Minilang is used inconsistently (different DSL in widgets, services and entities). Hence, we need to keep only a minimal DSL to declare things only. We already have Java based implementations for services and events and there are ideas to implement a Groovy DSL which can be used as easy (or easier) as mini lang and does not have the above mentioned flaws. I therefore like to propose to deprecate the mini lang implementation which means: 1. there will be no new implementations based on mini lang accepted to go into the code base. 2. mini lang and mini lang code will be maintained with bug and security fixes for backwards compatibility and to support existing adopters relying on mini lang. There will be no new features though. 3. we will continously replace the mini lang implementations with Java and/or Groovy code. This will be another good opportunity for contributors to engage in the project. This will certainly be a longer process and we will not stop support for mini lang but I think we should avoid to add more mini lang implementations to the project. What do you think? Regards, Michael
