Re: [rules-dev] A syntax for rules
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.
-W
On 26/07/2012, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev