3 ms·
I get that they were trying to avoid this: > Process flows [were] “embedded” within the code of multiple application. But why did they choose a "JSON DSL" (wh
by jjoonathan 10y ago
I get that they were trying to avoid this:
> Process flows [were] “embedded” within the code of multiple application.
But why did they choose a "JSON DSL" (which fortunately seems to mean JSON and not a DSL) as the best way to accomplish that? Seems to me that a builder pattern could have achieved the same thing without dropping compile time checks in probably the one place where they are most useful.
- virenb77 10y agoA builder pattern will still be implemented within the code. It does make it easier to define flows but does not solve the problem of embedding flows inside the apps. Having an external DSL and keeping the flow definition outside the application scope into a central registry provides better control and visibility into flows - not to mention being able to change the wiring without recompiling or deploying apps.