[rules-dev] removing DSLs

[Wolfgang Laun]

On 29/01/2013, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
> One of the reasons this came up was due to round tripping from the guided
> editor to drl text format. This is so the guided editor does not use it's
> own proprietary xml format, but instead uses the .drl directly.
>
> Round tripping DRL is not so hard. Round tripping DSLs is much harder, and I
> suspect will be hard to get fool proof regex. Also we would at a minimum
> require an escape in the DRL to delimit a DSL sentence.
>
> If you think DSLs are useful, I think we can leave them in, with the caveat
> of the escape. Sound ok?

Not sure what you mean with the "escape". If you need to know, in the
DRL created from a DSL, from what DSL phrase what DRL was created,
annotations packed in comments could provide any necessary
information.

-W


>
> Mark
> On 29 Jan 2013, at 05:30, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>>
>> in my talk at RulesFest 2011 I've demonstrated that DSLs in their
>> current form are
>> indeed useful, perhaps not quite as easy to use as marketing hype
>> promises.  The current DSL process exploits regular expressions in a
>> clever way, but this has limits. (Programming in something close to
>> natural language has been an ongoing
>> dream since Rear Admiral G. Hopper's fine achievement, but no
>> remarkable progress has been made in half a century.)
>>
>> I have presented DSL rules more than once to an audience, and it seems
>> that getting non-geeks to appreciate rules is made easier this way.
>>
>> There is nothing in the current DSL that depends on DRL except the
>> undisputed keywords delimiting a rule. I can see no reason why DSL
>> shouldn't just stay the way it is: the documentation is fairly complete
>> (much
>> more than for some other Expert features) and it hasn't needed many
>> bugfixes I'm aware of.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> On 29/01/2013, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
>>> How would people feel if we removed DSLs from 6.0? There is no decision
>>> either way, but I wanted to see if people liked or disliked the idea.
>>>
>>> My reason for this is I don't believe DSLs in their current form, beyond
>>> demo ware, are useful. They need a lot more work to turn them into
>>> guided
>>> structured documents, we don't have the people to focus on that right
>>> now,
>>> and no one from the community has taken this on.
>>>
>>> I'd rather see them removed, until they can be done properly.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>