Re: Declarative Workflow update & shorthand/DSL

Thanks Geoff. I've had informal feedback from others in favour of the list approach, and in my trials it is working nice. I will apply the changes in the docs and PRs. Two other things: * Geoff's comment made me wonder about having a "function" step, where within a workflow one could define a l

Re: Declarative Workflow update & shorthand/DSL

Hi Alex, Mykola, By the way I should mention that I'm very busy in the evenings this week so might not get to look at the latest PR for a while. By all means go ahead and merge it if Mykola and/or others are happy with it, no need to wait for me. Cheers Geoff On Tue, 20 Sept 2022, 22:20 Geoff M

Re: Declarative Workflow update & shorthand/DSL

Hi Alex, +1 This updated proposal looks good - I do think the list based approach will be simpler and less error prone, and the fact that you will support an optional `id` anyway, if that is desired, means it retains much of the flexibility of the map based approach. The custom workflow step looks

Re: Declarative Workflow update & shorthand/DSL

Geoff- Thanks. Comments addressed in #1361 along with a major addition to support variables -- inputs/outputs/etc. All- One of the points Geoff makes concerns how steps are defined. I think along with other comments that tips the balance in favour of revisiting how steps are defined. I propos

Re: Declarative Workflow update & shorthand/DSL

Hi Alex, Belatedly reviewed the PR. It's looking good! And surprisingly simple in the end. Made a couple of minor comments on it. Cheers Geoff On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 09:35, Alex Heneveld wrote: > > Hi team, > > An initial PR with a few types and the ability to define an effector is > available

Re: Declarative Workflow update & shorthand/DSL

Yes, Geoff, I myself have spent a couple of hours reviewing it. I’m am ready to continue developing workflows further, and I would not delay it if there are no strong objections for workflows. It looks like a good addition to the core, moreover, looks like there is a demand for it. Please leave

Re: Declarative Workflow update & shorthand/DSL

Hi Mykola, I'd have thought it would be worth giving it some time to review, given that it is such a significant change. I'm personally of the opinion that significant changes like this shouldn't be merged without review. I was hoping to do some review on it this week myself, though I don't really

Re: Declarative Workflow update & shorthand/DSL

Hell All, Was I too hasty to merge the PR - https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/1358? We agreed to split the some of the work with Alex, and I did not see why it could not be merged to continue with what I’m working on. Regards,

Re: Declarative Workflow update & shorthand/DSL

Hi Alex, Thanks for the link, will have a look at the PR. As for the new shorthand proposal, +1 from me. I think it will be a majority of cases when things *are* simple - setting sensors, etc. Your example above goes from eight lines of markup for the steps to two, I think that's a compelling arg

Declarative Workflow update & shorthand/DSL

Hi team, An initial PR with a few types and the ability to define an effector is available [1]. This is enough for the next steps to be parallelized, e.g. new steps added. The proposal has been updated with a work plan / list of tasks [2]. Any volunteers to help with some of the upcoming tasks