[rules-dev] timer and duration tests releases- and please note the PS!

[Mark Proctor]

On 11/12/2010 08:59, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> here now:
>
> Ooh, it seems Eclipse outwitted me once again. But I think I made it 
> on the 2nd try...
> -W
>
I just ran this on my trunk and the tests passed......

So i'm removing the FIXME.

Mark
> PS:
> (1) A decision on the matter of DSL variables would be appreciated. 
> I'm currently
> developing a non-trivial DSL, and learning a lot about what's needed for a
> /real world /application. Most importantly, some means of structuring the
> DSL definition, so that they can be applied distinctively to specific 
> groups of
> rules. This reduces the risk of "ricochets" if you know what I mean.
>
> I've thought about proposing an entirely new approach, based on DRL 
> syntactic
> entities, i.e., the expansion of a DSL phrase must be a "medium level" 
> non-terminal
> of the DRL language. But this certainly restricts phrase parameters to 
> terminals.
> If it's too sophisticated, you end up with a parser/compiler almost as 
> nasty as ANTLR3.
>
> (2) I haven't forgotten the spreadsheet fixes. There's another relic I 
> found: some of
> the column keywords have single letter alternatives (e.g. "U" for 
> "no-loop", "X" for
> "activation-group"). Should I retain them - they are NOT documented in 
> Expert.
>
> Should I add timer(int:)? Duration is deprecated, I'll leave this in 
> but it ought to
> be marked clearly as such in the documentation, at least.
>
> Please advise - I  can live with everything - non of this is important 
> for my company,
> but I want to get the fixes and additions out of my thinning hair ;-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20101212/a7963fca/attachment.html