Yes, I also think this changes more refer to model than DSL
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Renat Akhmerov wrote:
> Yes. Guys, thanks for your feedback. I had a conversation with Dmitri
> today and realized you guys are right here. We should think about building
> basically a "domain model" whi
Yes. Guys, thanks for your feedback. I had a conversation with Dmitri today and
realized you guys are right here. We should think about building basically a
“domain model” which the system operates with and once we built it we should
forget that we have some DSL or whatever we used to describe t
I looked at the review prior to looking at the discussion and even I was
confused by names like DSL*. The way I see it DSL is largely syntatic sugar
and therefore it will be good to have a clear separation between DSL and
model. The fact that something is defined in a DSL is irrelevant once it
cros
On 26 Feb 2014, at 22:54, Dmitri Zimine 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
We do use the term DSL, I invite you guys to clarify, how exactly.
Based on the terminology from [1], it's not part of the model, but the language
that describes the model in the file. And theoretically this may be not the
only language to express the workflow. Once the file is parsed, we opera
I don’t see any issues with term DSL (Domain Specific Language). This is really
a language which 'workbook definitions’ are written in.
Dmitri, could you please provide more details on why you question it?
Thanks
Renat Akhmerov
@ Mirantis Inc.
On 26 Feb 2014, at 20:12, Nikolay Makhotkin wro
