Open Stack

On 26 Feb 2014, at 22:54, Dmitri Zimine <dz at stackstorm.com> wrote:

> Based on the terminology from [1], it's not part of the model, but the language that describes the model in the file.

Sorry, I’m having a hard time trying to understand this phrase :) What do you mean by “model” here? And why should DSL be a part of the model?

> And theoretically this may be not the only language to express the workflow.

Sure, from that perspective, for example, JVM has many “DSLs”: Java, Scala, Groovy etc.

> Once the file is parsed, we operate on model, not on the language.

How does it influence using term DSL? DSL is, in fact, a user interface. Model is something we build inside a system to process DSL in a more convenient way.

> 
> I am afraid we are breaking an abstraction when begin to call things DSLWorkbook or DSLWorkflow. What is the difference between Workbook and DSLWorkbook, and how DSL is relevant here? 

Prefix “DSL” tells that this exactly matches the structure of an object declared with using DSL. But, for example, a workbook in a database may have (and it has) a different structure better suitable for storing it in a relational model.
So I’m not sure what you mean by saying “we are breaking an abstraction” here. What abstraction?

> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Mistral, 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140227/cb9984a0/attachment.html>