|
»
»
« Return to Thread: New scripting example in the core
Re: New scripting example in the core
by Ross Mason-3
::
Rate this Message:
Hi TC,
comments inline-
On 13 May 2008, at 20:12, Travis Carlson wrote:
> Hi, the scripting example is not in core, but in examples/scripting,
> the
> same place it's always been.
>
> What I added to core were 2 simple transformers and 1 simple component
> (StringToNumber, SimpleMathTransformer, AccumulatorComponent) which
> seemed like they may be generally useful to have and I specifically
> made
> them nice and generic (and documented). They have nothing to do with
> scripting.
>
> Note that we already have many simple transformers and components in
> core:
> StringAppendTransformer, StringToObjectArray, HexStringToByteArray,
> Base64Encoder, GZipCompressTransformerThese are generic type/format converters. The transformers you added
don't
fit that except StringToNumber, but event that is specialised since
you have
to be passing a number around as a payload, which would be pretty
unusual.
>
> StaticComponent, EchoComponent, LogComponent
>
> The ones I added didn't seem any less generic than those, but if
> everyone thinks it's a bad idea, I will remove them.
>
> Alternatively, we could split out a new module called
> "mule-module-basic" or something like that which has all these basic
> constructs in it, thereby reducing the size of mule-core itself.
I just don't see why we'd want to do this? the generic transformers
do not add any dependencies, this would just add complexity.
IMO the component and transformers should not be in core.
>
>
> Travis
>
> On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:12 -0400, Andrew Perepelytsya wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>> There was a new scripting example added recently in 2.0.x. The
>> question I have (also raised by Ross earlier) is why is it in the
>> core? I think every new transformer it added could've been easily
>> kept
>> isolated to the example, and new xsd schema elements shouldn't have
>> been added to the mule.xsd, but rather a namespace of its own (would
>> be a good demo too).
>>
>> Comments?
>> Andrew
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
comments inline-
On 13 May 2008, at 20:12, Travis Carlson wrote:
> Hi, the scripting example is not in core, but in examples/scripting,
> the
> same place it's always been.
>
> What I added to core were 2 simple transformers and 1 simple component
> (StringToNumber, SimpleMathTransformer, AccumulatorComponent) which
> seemed like they may be generally useful to have and I specifically
> made
> them nice and generic (and documented). They have nothing to do with
> scripting.
>
> Note that we already have many simple transformers and components in
> core:
> StringAppendTransformer, StringToObjectArray, HexStringToByteArray,
> Base64Encoder, GZipCompressTransformer
don't
fit that except StringToNumber, but event that is specialised since
you have
to be passing a number around as a payload, which would be pretty
unusual.
>
> StaticComponent, EchoComponent, LogComponent
>
> The ones I added didn't seem any less generic than those, but if
> everyone thinks it's a bad idea, I will remove them.
>
> Alternatively, we could split out a new module called
> "mule-module-basic" or something like that which has all these basic
> constructs in it, thereby reducing the size of mule-core itself.
I just don't see why we'd want to do this? the generic transformers
do not add any dependencies, this would just add complexity.
IMO the component and transformers should not be in core.
>
>
> Travis
>
> On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:12 -0400, Andrew Perepelytsya wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>> There was a new scripting example added recently in 2.0.x. The
>> question I have (also raised by Ross earlier) is why is it in the
>> core? I think every new transformer it added could've been easily
>> kept
>> isolated to the example, and new xsd schema elements shouldn't have
>> been added to the mule.xsd, but rather a namespace of its own (would
>> be a good demo too).
>>
>> Comments?
>> Andrew
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
« Return to Thread: New scripting example in the core
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
