Personally, I think they should remain until the replacement is complete and we can provide a migration path from one to the other.<br><br>The Guvnor community has a reasonably volume of emails relating to use of DSLs within Guvnor and to simply strip out would, in my opinion, leave a chasm for many users.<br>
<br>Furthermore I do not believe we should consider removing DSLs because it simplifies the DRL->Guided Rule Editor round tripping.<br><br>Rounds tripping needs to support what we currently provide for in the Guided Rule Editor, which includes DSL.<br>
<br>With kind regards,<br><br>Mike<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 29 January 2013 07:08, Mark Proctor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org" target="_blank">mproctor@codehaus.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Drools has been backwards compatible since 2006.<div><br></div><div>We'll provide migration paths, but we cannot guarantee backwards computability indefinitely.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For instance in the case of DSLs, if we were to drop them, we could provide a migrate script that rendered them all to pure drl (without any remaining DSL) so that they would continue to be executable.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Mark</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><div><div>On 29 Jan 2013, at 06:33, Ansgar Konermann <<a href="mailto:ansgar.konermann@googlemail.com" target="_blank">ansgar.konermann@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><p>I value source code compatibility much higher than a guided editor. We do all out rules editing in a plain text editor.</p><p>But we absolutely need the certainty that we can compile and run our existing mortgage scoring rules for our mission-critical system with the next major version of drools.</p>
<p>After all, rules also are what they are termed in Guvnor: assets. Please protect my assets.</p><p>Thanks</p><p>Ansgar</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Am 29.01.2013 00:08 schrieb "Mark Proctor" <<a href="mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org" target="_blank">mproctor@codehaus.org</a>>:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I'd rather see them removed, until they can be done properly.<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
rules-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">rules-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>rules-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">rules-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
rules-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org">rules-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>