I want to like SCXML, but executable XML is a bit of a two-bagger

Over the past few days I have been reading up on the State Chart XML spec. Ever since reading some of Stu Charltons ideas on a RESTful Hypermedia Agent and listening to his WS-REST keynote presentation, I’ve taken more of an interest in hierarchical state machines and began taking a more in-depth look into SCXML.

The design of SCXML is interesting. I like the ECMA Script functionality and XML structure feels clean at first. It all seems fine until you get to the section on executable content. There’s a bit of debate around “executable xml” and executable XML frameworks like Jelly. And even folks poking fun at the idea of an XML programming language. As a Java guy, I have grown to dislike build tools such as Ant due to the fact that one can express relatively complex conditional logic in XML. I like tools like Maven better since it’s XML model is more declarative rather than executable (profiles are conditional). When I need more complex build operations, I’d be looking at tools like Gradle. Don’t get me started on XSLT.

I really like the concept of SCXML, but I’m not sold on the design. I don’t really have issue with the use of XML in general, I get it. However, the executable XML content bit is really hard to get past. Expecially when a scripting evironment is available to the SCXML environment. I can debug JavaScript code with a number of tools. Executable XML content? Not so much. For me, the executable content bit is the technical equivalent of a two-bagger.

One thought on “I want to like SCXML, but executable XML is a bit of a two-bagger

Comments are closed.