Re: [RFC] simple method subsections
Locked
Re: [RFC] simple method subsections
 
|
Re: [RFC] simple method subsections
|
|
I'm still not totally sure what you're trying to accomplish, or maybe more accurately, what you want to make easier. Could you throw out some ofbiz-oriented pseudo code for the way you would do this now that you don't like? I don't think I really like this section approach in the simple- methods. It adds a lot of otherwise meaningless stuff to the routines, and you'd still have to instrument a LOT of code in order to really be able to use it without modifying the original code, and any code that was instrumented this way would result in more lines of code to maintain, and they may not be maintained the way you like, especially if the purpose or intent isn't clear. Based on more info about what you're trying to do I'm guessing we can find a better alternative that is more "automatic" and not so intrusive in existing code. -David On Nov 16, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Chris Howe wrote: > I gave several ideas, the parameterized one is probably the least > plausible because of security considerations. I'm leaning towards > the <section-begin/section-end> tagging that would be otherwise > inert to an ofbiz application. > > example: > MySimpleMehtods.xml > <simple-method method-name="myMehtod> > ...some logic... > <get-simple-method-section method-name="ofbizMethod" location="org/ > ofbiz/ofbizApp/OfbizServices.xml" section="sectionA"> > ...some more logic... > </simple-method> > > OfbizServices.xml > <simple-method method-name="ofbizMethod"> > ...some ofbiz logic that I don't want to run in myMethod... > <section-begin> > <section name="sectionA"> > </section-begin> > ...some ofbiz logic that I want to run in myMethod... > <section-end> > <section name="sectionA"> > </section-end> > ...some more ofbiz logic that I don't want to run in myMethod... > </simple-method> > > This would be similar to how <call-simple-method> works except you > would be pulling a node that is a child of <simple-method> instead > of a child node of <simple-methods>. And instead of pulling a node, > you're pulling all elements between a section-begin and a section- > end tag (this would allow for overlapping sections as well as being > able to keep an iteration open). > > I'd really appreciate more comments, especially from the framework > committers as this only has value if project simple-methods are > allowed to be salted with <section-begin/section-end> tags. > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jonathon -- Improov <[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email] > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:02:09 AM > Subject: Re: simple method subsections > > Are you suggesting something like abstract classes in Java, where some > methods are implemented and > some are not (blanks to be filled)? > > Parameterized simple methods. Sounds interesting. > > Some effort is needed to refactor the existing "OFBiz maintained" > simple methods to publish such > "hooks" where you can insert your own custom logics. > > Because that kind of elegant refactor takes time, it is often easier > to > just hack it and get the > job done. > > Unless we can identify numerous use cases for such elegant mechanisms, > there's little ROI in doing > such fanciful stuff. > >> My choices are either to bring he recursion service into my custom >> application and make the minor modification or to iterate back >> through the list adding the result of the service and then sorting. > > I would just reuse the recursion service "as is", and go through the > list with some > after-processing. Maximize reuse, minimize maintenance cost. Project > time frame is seldom less > than cruel! > > If that ever becomes a performance bottle-neck, I'll then do something > about it. > > Jonathon > > Chris Howe wrote: >> Thanks for the reply. Scope isn't my problem. My problem is a > trade-off between code reuse and performance. Lets say I'm doing > one of the > recursive party relationship services that returns a list of related > parties, but I also need to run the partyNameForDate service before > adding it to the list and I need to sort by name before displaying > it on > the screen. My choices are either to bring he recursion service > into my > custom application and make the minor modification or to iterate back > through the list adding the result of the service and then sorting. >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Jonathon -- Improov <[hidden email]> >> To: [hidden email] >> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:38:42 PM >> Subject: Re: simple method subsections >> >> >> Chris, >> >> Have a look at a thread I started at >> http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=10803536&framed=y . You >> also responded to that >> thread too. >> >> When you say "extend" a simple method, it might be easier to simply >> think of how you would extend >> a Java method. We would create a new method that first calls the old >> method, and then perform some >> custom actions after that (or the order could be flipped). >> >> Your suggestion with "selective reuse of parts of a simple method" >> would mean changing the >> original method (by inserting <section-begin> <section-end>), to >> "generic-ize" the original >> method. Then you might as well not call it "extension", but >> "customization" or "enhancement" or >> "refactor" instead. >> >> In that thread I pointed to, I had implemented a >> <call-simple-method-scoped> which allows simple >> methods to call other simple methods *exactly like how Java methods > can >> call other Java methods*. >> Unfortunately, the client I worked for now has exclusive rights to > that >> new and convenient >> artifact. :/ >> >> So what's the problem of having simple methods call other simple >> methods now, you may ask? Scope >> is all mixed up into a single bowl of alphabet soup, single > namespace. >> For those of us who know >> Java (or C or VB or just about any programming language at all), we >> know this isn't conventional, >> barely "right". >> >> To offer a solution to your question, I've found that the only way to >> call other methods in >> Minilang with proper scope (stored in call stack) is to use the > Service >> Engine. Yeah, it means >> that for every simple method you want to call, wrap them in a service >> and call the service instead. >> >> Jonathon >> >> Chris Howe wrote: >>> I'm looking for some feedback on an idea I'm tossing around >>> >>> Problem: When creating a custom application, often times you will be >> creating business logic that is exactly like what is in OFBiz but > needs >> to be slightly modified before sending it to the entity engine for >> storage or before creating a result. (changing the way a price is >> calculated, adding specialized field information, etc). >>> It would helpful to be able to call the OFBiz maintained method and >> then extend it through a custom call. >>> A couple ideas on how to accomplish this >>> 1) Add two new element groups, >>> <section-begin> >>> <section name="sectionA"/> >>> </section-begin >>> ...some logic... >>> <section-end> >>> <section name="sectionA"/> >>> </section-end> >>> ...more logic... >>> >>> >>> and salt the ofbiz method so that you can pull only the logic >> between the two >>> 2) mimic the screen-widget's decorator pattern >>> >>> 3) add a map of simple-methods to the method's context that allows >> running extended code >>> extendMethod.myLocation#myMethod >>> >>> and then salt the ofbiz method to call if it exist. >>> >>> >>> TIA for any thoughts >>> >>> ,Chris >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > |
smime.p7s (3K)
getPaymentAppliedBd
|
|
Re: getPaymentAppliedBd
|
|
In this method call "ToPaymentApplication" is a relationship name, made up of a prefix and the entity name. For more info see: http://ofbiz.apache.org/docs/entity.html What kinds of log entries are you seeing? -David On Nov 16, 2007, at 3:12 PM, skip@thedevers wrote: > In PaymentWorker.getPaymentAppliedBd() near line 280 > > I find this code: > > paymentApplications = payment.getRelated("ToPaymentApplication"); > > There is no ToPaymentApplication entity that I can find. Is this > something > that should be removed or is there some plan to do something really > cool. > > It also causes log entries that are not really errors in my view. > > Should I take this out and submit a patch? > > Skip > > |
Re: [RFC] simple method subsections
|
|
Re: [RFC] simple method subsections
|
|
Re: [RFC] simple method subsections
|
|
Re: [RFC] simple method subsections
|
|
RE: getPaymentAppliedBd
|
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |