1:07 a.m.
Hi All,
Last month I attended Juan's session on the recent changes in RHV API.
I wrote a post on how I believe it can be enhanced by using an external domain-specific
language rather than the internal domain-specific language that is used today:
http://ahadas.github.io/dsl-for-api-spec-in-ovirt/
Your feedback is welcomed,
Arik
2:46 a.m.
Hi Arik,
nice article. I do agree that external DSLs are useful, but I have
(long-standing) objection to inventing new ones, especially in an area
of SDKs. I still feel we should have adopted something that is (at
least close to) industry standard - Swagger [1] or maybe Blueprint
[2]. We would get all the tooling and SDK generators "for free".
Inventing a new DSL that only we know about means we have to maintain
all the tools ourselves.
I agree with the general points though, it is very nice when the
boilerplate is inferred from the sources. It reduces overhead and the
chance of (coding) bugs.
On a side note:
The separation of the API definition jar from the rest of the engine
source code was a good move. But on the other hand, the repository
separation of the definition from the engine implementation was not so
great :( We lost atomicity and easy revert capabilities (for example
when the API definition version requires two new features, but only
one is implemented till deadline) and increased the overhead.
[1] http://swagger.io
[2] https://apiblueprint.org/
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Arik Hadas <ahadas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi All,
Last month I attended Juan's session on the recent changes in RHV API.
I wrote a post on how I believe it can be enhanced by using an external domain-specific
language rather than the internal domain-specific language that is used today:
http://ahadas.github.io/dsl-for-api-spec-in-ovirt/
Your feedback is welcomed,
Arik
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
6:01 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
Hi Arik,
nice article. I do agree that external DSLs are useful, but I have
Thanks!
(long-standing) objection to inventing new ones, especially in an
area
of SDKs. I still feel we should have adopted something that is (at
least close to) industry standard - Swagger [1] or maybe Blueprint
[2]. We would get all the tooling and SDK generators "for free".
Inventing a new DSL that only we know about means we have to maintain
all the tools ourselves.
Right, I do not claim that the proposed external DSL is the ideal
language, others including existing ones can (maybe even better) fit.
I'm not familiar with Swagger and Blueprint so I cannot address them
specifically, but I guess the general trade-off will hold: by using
languages that intend at being reusable in multiple projects you
can leverage their implementation and tools that are also typically
more mature but would typically lack project-specific things like
the ability to define a field with predefined values as our status of
documentation (and then the question to be asked is if we actually
need such project-specific things).
In a paper that is currently in review I argue that chances that
ordinary DSL would be reusable as third-party language in other
projects are significantly higher than those of the reusability of a
domain-specific aspect language. Of course, if that is the case then
a third-party DSL should be considered in light of this trade-off.
I agree with the general points though, it is very nice when the
boilerplate is inferred from the sources. It reduces overhead and the
chance of (coding) bugs.
On a side note:
The separation of the API definition jar from the rest of the engine
source code was a good move. But on the other hand, the repository
separation of the definition from the engine implementation was not so
great :( We lost atomicity and easy revert capabilities (for example
when the API definition version requires two new features, but only
one is implemented till deadline) and increased the overhead.
[1] http://swagger.io
[2] https://apiblueprint.org/
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Arik Hadas <ahadas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Last month I attended Juan's session on the recent changes in RHV API.
> I wrote a post on how I believe it can be enhanced by using an external
> domain-specific language rather than the internal domain-specific language
> that is used today:
> http://ahadas.github.io/dsl-for-api-spec-in-ovirt/
>
> Your feedback is welcomed,
> Arik
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
3052
days inactive
3052
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Arik Hadas -
Martin Sivak