cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vadim Gritsenko" <vadim.gritse...@verizon.net>
Subject RE: Jelly as a possible template or business language (was [RT] SpitScript and [RT] Flowmaps)
Date Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:51:26 GMT
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
> 
> > From:     Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org>
> ...
> >> RT about a business logic definition system that has
> >>these goals:
> >>
> >>1. has a quick write-test-correct cycle, ie not to be compiled
> >>2. is easy to write and understand
> >>3. is modular
> >>4. will make flowscript a solution to a problem, not a problem
itself
> >
> 
> 
> James Strachan wrote:
> > Certainly I think Jelly solves all the above goals.
> >
> > One of the things I wanted Jelly to do is to take existing
declarative
> > langauges for workflow, rules, business logic, testing, building and
so
> > forth and turn them into running code easily. So Jelly could, for
example,
> > implement the flow / workflow language defined in the
commons-workflow
> > component in Jakarta Commons sandbox, or any other declarative XML
language.
> >
> > Lately I've been looking into using Jelly to implement declarative
workflow
> > style XML languages. There's a bunch of them out there like BPML,
XLang,
> > WfMC, WSFL etc. What I'd like is for us to design the most
appropriate
> > declarative XML language for the problem at hand, then try to use
Jelly to
> > turn that into a running script. So its on my todo list to
investigate using
> > Jelly with projects like OSWorkflow to implement the declarative
part of
> > business logic, make tag libraries for rules engines like drools or
for
> > state transition modules etc.
> >
> > I hope some of this has made some sense to some of you ;-). I'd
appreciate
> > any comments you might have.
> 
> If we want to make a business logic system that is based on tasks, I
have
> little doubt that we could find something better than Jelly :-)
> 
> Not only can one reuse tags, but can use tag libraries that have been
> incompatible before to be used together.
> 
> The question is: what *is* business logic?

Not going into discussion of what is business logic (in our part of
universe the answer is - EJB ;) ...

I think it does make sense to have JellyGenerator on same rights as
there is VelocityGenerator, because:

> James Strachan wrote:
> So in some ways Jelly is like Velocity, but using
> XML notation for directives rather than Velocity's # notation (more on
> this later).


Vadim


> If we make a Jelly business logic system, a Jelly Generator, a Jelly
> Transformer and a Jelly flow control system, what would prevent the
> developer from getting mixed up and not understand what to code where?
> 
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
>              - verba volant, scripta manent -
>     (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message