Re: [Fornax-developer] Higher abstraction level
Thinking time is over :-)
I think this is very interesting. In my dreams it would be possible and easy
for anyone to develop their own DSL and code generator on top of Sculptor.
Then it would be possible to develop things like you describe without adding
everything in the core of Sculptor. I can think of many use cases for this.
One would be a to develop a DSL for the business domain (not only technical
stuff) of something in your company. Then we are talking about higher level
of abstraction!
We already have great possibilities to customize the code generation
templates (and transformations).
It is already possible to design your own meta model that refers to or
extends sculptor meta model. This is what we do in gui meta model.
It is already possible to develop a new xtext dsl with references to the
sculptordsl. This is what we do in sculptorguidsl.
The part that is missing is to easily be able to tweek existing sculptordsl.
Maybe you only need a few additions to existing rule definitions. In new
xtext this should be possible as described in xtext user guide.
http://www.eclipse.org/Xtext/documentation/0_7_2/xtext.html#grammarMixins
I have not tried, so I don't know if is usable.
My suggestion is that you try to develop some of your ideas as a separate
add-on. Maybe we need to adjust things in core sculptor to be able to
support these kind of custom DSL/genererators even better.
/Patrik
Patrik Nordwall wrote:
I need some mental thinking time on this :-)
PaloT wrote:
Hi Patrki, just needed time to do mental work. I was thinking about
your proposal. Than I will have free tied entities. For example in ORG
module I have Employee and in CMDB module will have CMDBEmployee with
link to Employee like:
Entity CMDBEmployee {
Long originEmployee;
...
}
I was dreaming more about some automatic sharing attributes, automatic
spliting and merging entities, ... . Is here some generic pattern,
technology which we can support in Sculptor regarding this? Some
generic concept in Spring, SOA (ServiceMix 4, Eclipse Swordfish, ...)
which can be implemented in Sculptor? I'm just trying to find
something common what should be useful for others. I know how to do it
manually in SOA or using some other technologies. But maybe here is
some standardization going on. Something like:
BusinessEntity CentralEmployee {
String firstName searchable readonly - OrgEmployee.name,
HrEmployee.firstName
String secondName searchable readonly - OrgEmployee.lastName,
HrEmployee.secondName
String title readonly - OrgEmployee.title
String eyeColor
Date birthdate searchable readonly - HrEmplyee.birthdate
HrEmployee hrDetail - HrEmployee.* except firstName, secondName
CmdbEmployee cmdbDetail - CmdbEmployee.*
}
Business entity will remember all set operation and set dirty flag for
specific entities which need to be saved and allow to get specific
entities like 'createHrEmployee' which will return HrEmployee object.
Similar to this service:
BusinessService EmployeeService {
save - OrgEmployeeService failfast recover, HrEmployeeService.save
ignoreerror, CmdbEmloyeeService.save ignoreerror
}
I have in ming many concept around this like transaction control,
messaging, search database, orchestration, ... . You are wise man, you
read even more than I about concepts. Do you have something in mind
regarding this? Am I totally foolish if I want achieve this?
Pavel
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Patrik Nordwall
patrik.nordw...@gmail.com wrote:
My intuitive recommendation is that you should use seperate
representations
in the different systems. More flexible and less dependencies between
them.
I think it is bad to share db between systems. Each should own it's
data,
but replication (via message bus) might be needed. Each system can store
it's own representation. Only one should be master (responsible for
updating
data).
In ddd terms this is about different bounded contexts and
anti-corruption
layer. This is absolutely not the only ddd strategic design pattern.
Read
more in the ddd book or in this article
http://www.infoq.com/articles/ddd-contextmapping
/Patrik
PaloT wrote:
Hi,
maybe this is not right forum but I know that many clever brains watch
it.
I have following problem:
We have organization structure with Employee entity, pretty simple.
Now we are going to implement ConfigurationDatabase system (CMDB). I
have to add some attributes to Employee (machines which he
administrate, ...). Than we are implementing sales system. I have to
again add some attributes to Person like teritory, distributionPhase,
... . And than problem come when I want deploy and combine different
systems for customers (with sales system, without CMDB, ...). How to
solve this?
a) Create independent systems with CmdbEmployee, SalesEmployee and
create higher level on bus (SOA) which will care about merging and
spliting all entities
Re: [Fornax-developer] Higher abstraction level
Hi Patrki, just needed time to do mental work. I was thinking about
your proposal. Than I will have free tied entities. For example in ORG
module I have Employee and in CMDB module will have CMDBEmployee with
link to Employee like:
Entity CMDBEmployee {
Long originEmployee;
...
}
I was dreaming more about some automatic sharing attributes, automatic
spliting and merging entities, ... . Is here some generic pattern,
technology which we can support in Sculptor regarding this? Some
generic concept in Spring, SOA (ServiceMix 4, Eclipse Swordfish, ...)
which can be implemented in Sculptor? I'm just trying to find
something common what should be useful for others. I know how to do it
manually in SOA or using some other technologies. But maybe here is
some standardization going on. Something like:
BusinessEntity CentralEmployee {
String firstName searchable readonly - OrgEmployee.name,
HrEmployee.firstName
String secondName searchable readonly - OrgEmployee.lastName,
HrEmployee.secondName
String title readonly - OrgEmployee.title
String eyeColor
Date birthdate searchable readonly - HrEmplyee.birthdate
HrEmployee hrDetail - HrEmployee.* except firstName, secondName
CmdbEmployee cmdbDetail - CmdbEmployee.*
}
Business entity will remember all set operation and set dirty flag for
specific entities which need to be saved and allow to get specific
entities like 'createHrEmployee' which will return HrEmployee object.
Similar to this service:
BusinessService EmployeeService {
save - OrgEmployeeService failfast recover, HrEmployeeService.save
ignoreerror, CmdbEmloyeeService.save ignoreerror
}
I have in ming many concept around this like transaction control,
messaging, search database, orchestration, ... . You are wise man, you
read even more than I about concepts. Do you have something in mind
regarding this? Am I totally foolish if I want achieve this?
Pavel
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Patrik Nordwall
patrik.nordw...@gmail.com wrote:
My intuitive recommendation is that you should use seperate representations
in the different systems. More flexible and less dependencies between them.
I think it is bad to share db between systems. Each should own it's data,
but replication (via message bus) might be needed. Each system can store
it's own representation. Only one should be master (responsible for updating
data).
In ddd terms this is about different bounded contexts and anti-corruption
layer. This is absolutely not the only ddd strategic design pattern. Read
more in the ddd book or in this article
http://www.infoq.com/articles/ddd-contextmapping
/Patrik
PaloT wrote:
Hi,
maybe this is not right forum but I know that many clever brains watch it.
I have following problem:
We have organization structure with Employee entity, pretty simple.
Now we are going to implement ConfigurationDatabase system (CMDB). I
have to add some attributes to Employee (machines which he
administrate, ...). Than we are implementing sales system. I have to
again add some attributes to Person like teritory, distributionPhase,
... . And than problem come when I want deploy and combine different
systems for customers (with sales system, without CMDB, ...). How to
solve this?
a) Create independent systems with CmdbEmployee, SalesEmployee and
create higher level on bus (SOA) which will care about merging and
spliting all entities together
b) We will provide some kind of mixins in Sculptor DSL which will
allow merging entities (CmdbEmployee mixin Employee)
c) AspectJ ITD
e) Any other better idea?
Thanks for ANY hint you can provide
Pavel
--
Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
___
Fornax-developer mailing list
Fornax-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fornax-developer
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Higher-abstraction-level-tp28177781s17564p28188159.html
Sent from the Fornax-Platform mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
___
Fornax-developer mailing list
Fornax-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fornax-developer
--
Download
Re: [Fornax-developer] Higher abstraction level
I need some mental thinking time on this :-)
PaloT wrote:
Hi Patrki, just needed time to do mental work. I was thinking about
your proposal. Than I will have free tied entities. For example in ORG
module I have Employee and in CMDB module will have CMDBEmployee with
link to Employee like:
Entity CMDBEmployee {
Long originEmployee;
...
}
I was dreaming more about some automatic sharing attributes, automatic
spliting and merging entities, ... . Is here some generic pattern,
technology which we can support in Sculptor regarding this? Some
generic concept in Spring, SOA (ServiceMix 4, Eclipse Swordfish, ...)
which can be implemented in Sculptor? I'm just trying to find
something common what should be useful for others. I know how to do it
manually in SOA or using some other technologies. But maybe here is
some standardization going on. Something like:
BusinessEntity CentralEmployee {
String firstName searchable readonly - OrgEmployee.name,
HrEmployee.firstName
String secondName searchable readonly - OrgEmployee.lastName,
HrEmployee.secondName
String title readonly - OrgEmployee.title
String eyeColor
Date birthdate searchable readonly - HrEmplyee.birthdate
HrEmployee hrDetail - HrEmployee.* except firstName, secondName
CmdbEmployee cmdbDetail - CmdbEmployee.*
}
Business entity will remember all set operation and set dirty flag for
specific entities which need to be saved and allow to get specific
entities like 'createHrEmployee' which will return HrEmployee object.
Similar to this service:
BusinessService EmployeeService {
save - OrgEmployeeService failfast recover, HrEmployeeService.save
ignoreerror, CmdbEmloyeeService.save ignoreerror
}
I have in ming many concept around this like transaction control,
messaging, search database, orchestration, ... . You are wise man, you
read even more than I about concepts. Do you have something in mind
regarding this? Am I totally foolish if I want achieve this?
Pavel
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Patrik Nordwall
patrik.nordw...@gmail.com wrote:
My intuitive recommendation is that you should use seperate
representations
in the different systems. More flexible and less dependencies between
them.
I think it is bad to share db between systems. Each should own it's data,
but replication (via message bus) might be needed. Each system can store
it's own representation. Only one should be master (responsible for
updating
data).
In ddd terms this is about different bounded contexts and anti-corruption
layer. This is absolutely not the only ddd strategic design pattern. Read
more in the ddd book or in this article
http://www.infoq.com/articles/ddd-contextmapping
/Patrik
PaloT wrote:
Hi,
maybe this is not right forum but I know that many clever brains watch
it.
I have following problem:
We have organization structure with Employee entity, pretty simple.
Now we are going to implement ConfigurationDatabase system (CMDB). I
have to add some attributes to Employee (machines which he
administrate, ...). Than we are implementing sales system. I have to
again add some attributes to Person like teritory, distributionPhase,
... . And than problem come when I want deploy and combine different
systems for customers (with sales system, without CMDB, ...). How to
solve this?
a) Create independent systems with CmdbEmployee, SalesEmployee and
create higher level on bus (SOA) which will care about merging and
spliting all entities together
b) We will provide some kind of mixins in Sculptor DSL which will
allow merging entities (CmdbEmployee mixin Employee)
c) AspectJ ITD
e) Any other better idea?
Thanks for ANY hint you can provide
Pavel
--
Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
___
Fornax-developer mailing list
Fornax-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fornax-developer
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Higher-abstraction-level-tp28177781s17564p28188159.html
Sent from the Fornax-Platform mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
___
Fornax-developer mailing list
Fornax-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
Re: [Fornax-developer] Higher abstraction level
My intuitive recommendation is that you should use seperate representations in the different systems. More flexible and less dependencies between them. I think it is bad to share db between systems. Each should own it's data, but replication (via message bus) might be needed. Each system can store it's own representation. Only one should be master (responsible for updating data). In ddd terms this is about different bounded contexts and anti-corruption layer. This is absolutely not the only ddd strategic design pattern. Read more in the ddd book or in this article http://www.infoq.com/articles/ddd-contextmapping /Patrik PaloT wrote: Hi, maybe this is not right forum but I know that many clever brains watch it. I have following problem: We have organization structure with Employee entity, pretty simple. Now we are going to implement ConfigurationDatabase system (CMDB). I have to add some attributes to Employee (machines which he administrate, ...). Than we are implementing sales system. I have to again add some attributes to Person like teritory, distributionPhase, ... . And than problem come when I want deploy and combine different systems for customers (with sales system, without CMDB, ...). How to solve this? a) Create independent systems with CmdbEmployee, SalesEmployee and create higher level on bus (SOA) which will care about merging and spliting all entities together b) We will provide some kind of mixins in Sculptor DSL which will allow merging entities (CmdbEmployee mixin Employee) c) AspectJ ITD e) Any other better idea? Thanks for ANY hint you can provide Pavel -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Fornax-developer mailing list Fornax-developer@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fornax-developer -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Higher-abstraction-level-tp28177781s17564p28188159.html Sent from the Fornax-Platform mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Fornax-developer mailing list Fornax-developer@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fornax-developer
