[rules-dev] A syntax for rules

[Mark Proctor]

On 26/07/2012 14:10, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> Last time I looked, the classes representing rules weren't documented at
> all. Edson said, "Later". It isn't later yet, is it?
> -
No it's not documented yet, so you'd need to look at existing parsers to 
figure out what's going on.

Mark
>
> On 26/07/2012, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
>> On 26/07/2012 05:53, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>>> As proof of "pluggable parsers" working, keep the current 5.x syntax in
>>> parallel to any new format.
>>>
>>> If migration to 6.x implies both a change of the language and an
>>> engine with considerable changes in it, I fear that the decision
>>> between staying with 5.x and upgrading to 6.x will be lopsided.
>>> Not having to suffer from both would mitigate this.
>> We will definitely provide a drl5.5 translator. I'm reluctant to do a
>> 5.5 executable parser, because we'll have to maintain it indefinitely;
>> and all the cost that is involved with this. And also restructuring of
>> all our test frameworks to ensure both 5.5 and 6.0 continue to be tested.
>>
>> I'm not say that we won't do a 5.5 executable parser, when the time
>> comes it's open for debate. I'm just very apprehensive about it. Let's
>> leave this discussion until the time is relevant, we can start a new
>> thread on it then.
>>
>> Either way I'd definitely encourage your work (and others if they want
>> to do their own language) as independant language efforts.
>>
>> Mark
>>> -W
>>>
>>> On 26/07/2012, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
>>>> I would add that pluggable parsers to investigate alternative rule
>>>> language design ontop of Drools is perfectly acceptable, and probaby
>>>> desirable. Any parser should be able to map to the descr tree.
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to look into how we can make pluggable parsers more of an end
>>>> users feature, if there are people out there that want to have a go at
>>>> designing and writting their own rule language.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>> On 25/07/2012 09:00, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>>>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-dev mailing list
>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev