Question about new "black box" in data types

[josejuanmontiel]

Hi!

First of all, thanks al lot for all this great work.

I'm not big expert in DDD and the world of "definition" of software, but i understand the ideas behind the way of organize the process of definition following this process ... and i understand how data types are defined (and when... more or less extended.. and how this definition iterate).

I'm considering starting to introduce some kind of standardization in my current protect and using MDSL could be a great point of start ... because we are starting with "Api first" and we are starting to define our apis with openapi and also use the generators... for spring boot in this case.

The idea i'm thinking is start to introduce datatypes in the part where now ... we use "plain text/tabulated text/html tables" to describe the "entities/table..." ... and use freemarker template to generate this "plain text" from MDSL file with data types...

In this way we can start to define "data types" and use it to generate the actual "plain text" definition ... but later we can reuse the datatypes to generate the openapi part... BUT ... i would like to "preserve" the rest of the "plain text definition of the attributes... cardinality, length, validations an other stuff in some "black box" in the MDSL for put in the "plain text" with the freemarker template we can split or something else.. .and probably use as description in the openapi generator.

Then.. QUESTION ... could i propose a PR to add an optional "description" element (like in Message or MesageBroker) in data types ... and later include as description in openapi if exist? and in this way ... use in freemaker?

Thanks a lot for this great job in all of this.