Re: [rules-dev] DSL expansion: ready for commit

Constraining the scope of applicable when-fragment might be added on top of the current DSL syntax, providing a compatible migration path. Notice that constraining the scope is similar to the rule attribute "auto-focus", but unqualified entries may have to remain active throughout. Expansion will have to be able to handle insertions not only for the last preceding pattern but also to other parenthesized condition phrases, e.g. eval, forall, etc.

-W On 15 December 2010 10:18, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org <mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>> wrote: Thought I'd mention where I'd like to see DSLs go in the future, if anyone is interested. DSLs are template fragments that can be used in conjuction with each other. I'll refer to them as template fragments from now on. -Selecting one template fragment constraints which peer fragments may be used after it. -Template fragments may have nested template fragments. The available nested fragments are themselves constrained and depending on which child fragment is chosen cosntrains any allowed peer child fragments. -As well as constraining which peer or child fragments can be used cardinality can also be constrained. -The peering and nesting itself can be recursively applied, So what we are talking about here is something that is almost xsd schema like, for producing constrained documents. Mark On 15/12/2010 07:41, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > On 13 December 2010 19:58, Edson Tirelli <ed.tirelli(a)gmail.com > <mailto:ed.tirelli@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, > > Mark said you would like us to take a look at some of your > commits? > Can you let me know which ones? > > > Hi Edson, > > I have reached a state where I think changes might be committed - > see the attached README. I'll just go through the code and add > some comments and make sure no "noise" remains. Then I'll send > you the zipped tarball of all changes. If there are no > objections, I'll also commit, but I need to do this before the > git change incapacitates me. (I just don't have the time right > now for making this conversion, and I won't have it until > E12/2010. Worst time of the year for doing a change like that!) > > @developers: Anybody interested in this set of changes can ask me > for the sources. > > Best > Wolfgang > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev