I think it's a DSL less in the use of the fluent API and more in the over-utilization of strings as unstringlike things. There must be a fair bit of interpreting going on for those strings to mean anything, to lex and parse them into more meaningful structures to Camel. But yes, I think the reliance on Java syntax for some things, string interpretation for other things, makes this a particularly bad DSL. I'd prefer to see either a well-designed API or a fully-interpreted scripting language, not half-of-this-and-half-of-that.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Nick Shelley <nickmshel...@gmail.com> wrote: > The simplicity and DSL thread mentioned Java DSLs, and I came across an > example of one at http://camel.apache.org/java-dsl.html. > > To me, this isn't really a DSL, it's more of a programming pattern. One of > the usage patterns on the wiki page for DSL is embedded DSL that uses the > syntax of the host language, but to me it's not really a DSL unless it has > different syntax or semantics that actually make it a different language. > > Since I'm not very experienced in this at all, I thought I'd ask the list > what definition of DSL is most correct and adopt that one. Any thoughts will > be appreciated. > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
