11:33 a.m.
Mark, All,
AFAIK, xdrl is used for systems to exchange rules (perhaps for storing too). This, as
opposed to human use, for which XML can be quite awkward to say the least. This to say
that putting readability as a major factor might make us miss the main point.
For humans<expr>status == state</expr> is nicer. However, for systems
interaction it's pretty terrible. It's some form of half use of XML where the
expression itself can only be validated or transformed with considerable efforts (e.g.
regex) when xml tags would allow using standard XML tools (e.g. XPATH). I've got
examples of this in the rule translation console: http://yieldrif.appspot.com/ (shameless
plug!).
Let's have a look at other XML rule descriptions (please note that I don't imply
that these are 100% valid expressions in their respective languages):
JessML
<pattern>
<name>Order</name>
<binding>o</binding>
<slot>
<name>total</name>
<test>
<type>eq</type>
<conjunction>and</conjunction>
<value type='VARIABLE'>__synth0</value>
</test>
<test>
<type>eq</type>
<conjunction>and</conjunction>
<funcall>
<name>></name>
<value type='VARIABLE'>__synth0</value>
<value type='INTEGER'>100</value>
</funcall>
</test>
</slot>
</pattern>
RIF-PRD
<formula>
<name>Order</name>
<formula>
<Equal>
<left>
<Var>total</Var>
</left>
<right>
<Var>-var-__synth2</Var>
</right>
</Equal>
<Equal>
<left>
<Var>total</Var>
</left>
<right>
<Expr>
<op>
<Const
type="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri">http://www.w3.org/2007...
</op>
<args ordered="yes">
<Var>-var-__synth2</Var>
<Var>100</Var>
</args>
</Expr>
</right>
</Equal>
</formula>
</formula>
I hope this helps,
Pierre
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:11:24 +0100
From: Mark Proctor<mproctor(a)codehaus.org>
Subject: Re: [rules-dev] xdrl fixes/enhancements
To:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
Message-ID:<4DC8F32C.7080205@codehaus.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/05/2011 09:07, Mark Proctor wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 08:10, Veit Guna wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> Any chance that this could be reviewed and maybe integrated into the
> >> release?
> >>
> >> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2672
> I'm in two minds on this. Edson and I are thinking of changing the xml
> parser to just be:
> <Pattern object-type="xxxx">
> <expr>......</expr>
> <expr>......</expr>
> <expr>......</expr>
> </Pattern>
>
> With any valid expression allwed in expr, i.e. any combinatino of ||,
> &&, method calls, +, - etc. Which follows what we've done with
free-form
> drl.
> Our current approach to normalising expressions in XMl isn't working too
> well, and the more we extropolate that the worse it gets:
> <dro:pattern object-type="String">
> <dro:and-constraint-connective>
> <dro:field-constraint field-name="this">
> <dro:literal-restriction evaluator="!=" value="null"/>
> </dro:field-constraint>
> <dro:field-constraint field-name="this.toLowerCase">
> <dro:literal-restriction evaluator="==" value="true"/>
> </dro:field-constraint>
> </dro:and-constraint-connective>
> <dro:from>
> <dro:expression>fctv_17263.getHeaderValues("X-My-Header");
> </dro:expression>
> </dro:from>
> </dro:pattern>
>
> But I do recognise that you patch might give a lifeline to existing XML
> users....
I should add that I ripped out most of the handler validation
parent/peer stuff already. This was necessary to get the new compiler
working, and<expr> actually already works, see DumperTest.
<lhs>
<forall>
<pattern object-type="State">
<field-binding field-name="state" identifier="state" />
</pattern>
<pattern object-type="Person">
<expr>
status == state
</expr>
<field-binding field-name="likes" identifier="likes" />
</pattern>
</forall>
</lhs>
Mark
> Mark
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rules-dev mailing list
> >> rules-dev(a)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
>
>
5:46 a.m.
I agree - the pattern approach is really not that different to drools 2, if you look at it
sideways ;)
It seems all full fidelity XML versions of drl are doomed to fail ! (drl is very very
rich).
Sent from my phone.
On 11/05/2011, at 7:33 PM, Pierre <pdl(a)agh.edu.pl> wrote:
Mark, All,
AFAIK, xdrl is used for systems to exchange rules (perhaps for storing too). This, as
opposed to human use, for which XML can be quite awkward to say the least. This to say
that putting readability as a major factor might make us miss the main point.
For humans<expr>status == state</expr> is nicer. However, for systems
interaction it's pretty terrible. It's some form of half use of XML where the
expression itself can only be validated or transformed with considerable efforts (e.g.
regex) when xml tags would allow using standard XML tools (e.g. XPATH). I've got
examples of this in the rule translation console: http://yieldrif.appspot.com/ (shameless
plug!).
Let's have a look at other XML rule descriptions (please note that I don't imply
that these are 100% valid expressions in their respective languages):
JessML
<pattern>
<name>Order</name>
<binding>o</binding>
<slot>
<name>total</name>
<test>
<type>eq</type>
<conjunction>and</conjunction>
<value type='VARIABLE'>__synth0</value>
</test>
<test>
<type>eq</type>
<conjunction>and</conjunction>
<funcall>
<name>></name>
<value type='VARIABLE'>__synth0</value>
<value type='INTEGER'>100</value>
</funcall>
</test>
</slot>
</pattern>
RIF-PRD
<formula>
<name>Order</name>
<formula>
<Equal>
<left>
<Var>total</Var>
</left>
<right>
<Var>-var-__synth2</Var>
</right>
</Equal>
<Equal>
<left>
<Var>total</Var>
</left>
<right>
<Expr>
<op>
<Const
type="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri">http://www.w3.org/2007...
</op>
<args ordered="yes">
<Var>-var-__synth2</Var>
<Var>100</Var>
</args>
</Expr>
</right>
</Equal>
</formula>
</formula>
I hope this helps,
Pierre
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:11:24 +0100
From: Mark Proctor<mproctor(a)codehaus.org>
Subject: Re: [rules-dev] xdrl fixes/enhancements
To:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
Message-ID:<4DC8F32C.7080205@codehaus.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/05/2011 09:07, Mark Proctor wrote:
>> On 10/05/2011 08:10, Veit Guna wrote:
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> Any chance that this could be reviewed and maybe integrated into the
>>>> release?
>>>>
>>>> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2672
>> I'm in two minds on this. Edson and I are thinking of changing the xml
>> parser to just be:
>> <Pattern object-type="xxxx">
>> <expr>......</expr>
>> <expr>......</expr>
>> <expr>......</expr>
>> </Pattern>
>>
>> With any valid expression allwed in expr, i.e. any combinatino of ||,
>> &&, method calls, +, - etc. Which follows what we've done with
free-form
>> drl.
>> Our current approach to normalising expressions in XMl isn't working too
>> well, and the more we extropolate that the worse it gets:
>> <dro:pattern object-type="String">
>> <dro:and-constraint-connective>
>> <dro:field-constraint field-name="this">
>> <dro:literal-restriction evaluator="!=" value="null"/>
>> </dro:field-constraint>
>> <dro:field-constraint field-name="this.toLowerCase">
>> <dro:literal-restriction evaluator="==" value="true"/>
>> </dro:field-constraint>
>> </dro:and-constraint-connective>
>> <dro:from>
>> <dro:expression>fctv_17263.getHeaderValues("X-My-Header");
>> </dro:expression>
>> </dro:from>
>> </dro:pattern>
>>
>> But I do recognise that you patch might give a lifeline to existing XML
>> users....
I should add that I ripped out most of the handler validation
parent/peer stuff already. This was necessary to get the new compiler
working, and<expr> actually already works, see DumperTest.
<lhs>
<forall>
<pattern object-type="State">
<field-binding field-name="state" identifier="state" />
</pattern>
<pattern object-type="Person">
<expr>
status == state
</expr>
<field-binding field-name="likes" identifier="likes" />
</pattern>
</forall>
</lhs>
Mark
>> Mark
>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>>> rules-dev(a)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
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
5:57 a.m.
if you want full 100% xml, you'll first need to define a full expression
language in XML - as Drools DRL now supports freeform expressions. If
someone wants to work on that first, we can see how to utilise it's
namespace inside of patterns.
Jess XML works as it's expr language is simple. Drools 4.0 worked as
it's expression language is simpl. With drools 5.2 we now allow any free
form expression, and thus it's not so simple.
Mark
On 11/05/2011 10:33, Pierre wrote:
Mark, All,
AFAIK, xdrl is used for systems to exchange rules (perhaps for storing too). This, as
opposed to human use, for which XML can be quite awkward to say the least. This to say
that putting readability as a major factor might make us miss the main point.
For humans<expr>status == state</expr> is nicer. However, for systems
interaction it's pretty terrible. It's some form of half use of XML where the
expression itself can only be validated or transformed with considerable efforts (e.g.
regex) when xml tags would allow using standard XML tools (e.g. XPATH). I've got
examples of this in the rule translation console: http://yieldrif.appspot.com/ (shameless
plug!).
Let's have a look at other XML rule descriptions (please note that I don't imply
that these are 100% valid expressions in their respective languages):
JessML
<pattern>
<name>Order</name>
<binding>o</binding>
<slot>
<name>total</name>
<test>
<type>eq</type>
<conjunction>and</conjunction>
<value type='VARIABLE'>__synth0</value>
</test>
<test>
<type>eq</type>
<conjunction>and</conjunction>
<funcall>
<name>></name>
<value type='VARIABLE'>__synth0</value>
<value type='INTEGER'>100</value>
</funcall>
</test>
</slot>
</pattern>
RIF-PRD
<formula>
<name>Order</name>
<formula>
<Equal>
<left>
<Var>total</Var>
</left>
<right>
<Var>-var-__synth2</Var>
</right>
</Equal>
<Equal>
<left>
<Var>total</Var>
</left>
<right>
<Expr>
<op>
<Const
type="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri">http://www.w3.org/2007...
</op>
<args ordered="yes">
<Var>-var-__synth2</Var>
<Var>100</Var>
</args>
</Expr>
</right>
</Equal>
</formula>
</formula>
I hope this helps,
Pierre
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:11:24 +0100
From: Mark Proctor<mproctor(a)codehaus.org>
Subject: Re: [rules-dev] xdrl fixes/enhancements
To:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
Message-ID:<4DC8F32C.7080205@codehaus.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/05/2011 09:07, Mark Proctor wrote:
>> On 10/05/2011 08:10, Veit Guna wrote:
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> Any chance that this could be reviewed and maybe integrated into the
>>>> release?
>>>>
>>>> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2672
>> I'm in two minds on this. Edson and I are thinking of changing the xml
>> parser to just be:
>> <Pattern object-type="xxxx">
>> <expr>......</expr>
>> <expr>......</expr>
>> <expr>......</expr>
>> </Pattern>
>>
>> With any valid expression allwed in expr, i.e. any combinatino of ||,
>> &&, method calls, +, - etc. Which follows what we've done with
free-form
>> drl.
>> Our current approach to normalising expressions in XMl isn't working too
>> well, and the more we extropolate that the worse it gets:
>> <dro:pattern object-type="String">
>> <dro:and-constraint-connective>
>> <dro:field-constraint field-name="this">
>> <dro:literal-restriction evaluator="!="
value="null"/>
>> </dro:field-constraint>
>> <dro:field-constraint field-name="this.toLowerCase">
>> <dro:literal-restriction evaluator="=="
value="true"/>
>> </dro:field-constraint>
>> </dro:and-constraint-connective>
>> <dro:from>
>> <dro:expression>fctv_17263.getHeaderValues("X-My-Header");
>> </dro:expression>
>> </dro:from>
>> </dro:pattern>
>>
>> But I do recognise that you patch might give a lifeline to existing XML
>> users....
I should add that I ripped out most of the handler validation
parent/peer stuff already. This was necessary to get the new compiler
working, and<expr> actually already works, see DumperTest.
<lhs>
<forall>
<pattern object-type="State">
<field-binding field-name="state" identifier="state" />
</pattern>
<pattern object-type="Person">
<expr>
status == state
</expr>
<field-binding field-name="likes" identifier="likes" />
</pattern>
</forall>
</lhs>
Mark
>> Mark
>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>>> rules-dev(a)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
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
6:05 a.m.
Is there a useful subset as "proper" XML and leave the long tail for some catch
all tag?
I guess depends who wants this, for what purpose ;) I am guessing tooling /GUIs mostly,
with a little bit of interchange?
Sent from my phone.
On 12/05/2011, at 1:57 PM, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
if you want full 100% xml, you'll first need to define a full
expression
language in XML - as Drools DRL now supports freeform expressions. If
someone wants to work on that first, we can see how to utilise it's
namespace inside of patterns.
Jess XML works as it's expr language is simple. Drools 4.0 worked as
it's expression language is simpl. With drools 5.2 we now allow any free
form expression, and thus it's not so simple.
Mark
On 11/05/2011 10:33, Pierre wrote:
> Mark, All,
>
> AFAIK, xdrl is used for systems to exchange rules (perhaps for storing too). This, as
opposed to human use, for which XML can be quite awkward to say the least. This to say
that putting readability as a major factor might make us miss the main point.
>
> For humans<expr>status == state</expr> is nicer. However, for systems
interaction it's pretty terrible. It's some form of half use of XML where the
expression itself can only be validated or transformed with considerable efforts (e.g.
regex) when xml tags would allow using standard XML tools (e.g. XPATH). I've got
examples of this in the rule translation console: http://yieldrif.appspot.com/ (shameless
plug!).
>
> Let's have a look at other XML rule descriptions (please note that I don't
imply that these are 100% valid expressions in their respective languages):
>
> JessML
>
> <pattern>
> <name>Order</name>
> <binding>o</binding>
> <slot>
> <name>total</name>
> <test>
> <type>eq</type>
> <conjunction>and</conjunction>
> <value type='VARIABLE'>__synth0</value>
> </test>
> <test>
> <type>eq</type>
> <conjunction>and</conjunction>
> <funcall>
> <name>></name>
> <value type='VARIABLE'>__synth0</value>
> <value type='INTEGER'>100</value>
> </funcall>
> </test>
> </slot>
> </pattern>
>
> RIF-PRD
> <formula>
> <name>Order</name>
> <formula>
> <Equal>
> <left>
> <Var>total</Var>
> </left>
> <right>
> <Var>-var-__synth2</Var>
> </right>
> </Equal>
> <Equal>
> <left>
> <Var>total</Var>
> </left>
> <right>
> <Expr>
> <op>
> <Const
type="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri">http://www.w3.org/2007...
> </op>
> <args ordered="yes">
> <Var>-var-__synth2</Var>
> <Var>100</Var>
> </args>
> </Expr>
> </right>
> </Equal>
> </formula>
> </formula>
>
> I hope this helps,
> Pierre
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:11:24 +0100
> From: Mark Proctor<mproctor(a)codehaus.org>
> Subject: Re: [rules-dev] xdrl fixes/enhancements
> To:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
> Message-ID:<4DC8F32C.7080205@codehaus.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 10/05/2011 09:07, Mark Proctor wrote:
>
>>> On 10/05/2011 08:10, Veit Guna wrote:
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any chance that this could be reviewed and maybe integrated into
the
>>>>> release?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2672
>>> I'm in two minds on this. Edson and I are thinking of changing the xml
>>> parser to just be:
>>> <Pattern object-type="xxxx">
>>> <expr>......</expr>
>>> <expr>......</expr>
>>> <expr>......</expr>
>>> </Pattern>
>>>
>>> With any valid expression allwed in expr, i.e. any combinatino of ||,
>>> &&, method calls, +, - etc. Which follows what we've done with
free-form
>>> drl.
>>> Our current approach to normalising expressions in XMl isn't working
too
>>> well, and the more we extropolate that the worse it gets:
>>> <dro:pattern object-type="String">
>>> <dro:and-constraint-connective>
>>> <dro:field-constraint field-name="this">
>>> <dro:literal-restriction evaluator="!="
value="null"/>
>>> </dro:field-constraint>
>>> <dro:field-constraint field-name="this.toLowerCase">
>>> <dro:literal-restriction evaluator="=="
value="true"/>
>>> </dro:field-constraint>
>>> </dro:and-constraint-connective>
>>> <dro:from>
>>> <dro:expression>fctv_17263.getHeaderValues("X-My-Header");
>>> </dro:expression>
>>> </dro:from>
>>> </dro:pattern>
>>>
>>> But I do recognise that you patch might give a lifeline to existing XML
>>> users....
> I should add that I ripped out most of the handler validation
> parent/peer stuff already. This was necessary to get the new compiler
> working, and<expr> actually already works, see DumperTest.
> <lhs>
> <forall>
> <pattern object-type="State">
> <field-binding field-name="state" identifier="state" />
> </pattern>
>
> <pattern object-type="Person">
> <expr>
> status == state
> </expr>
> <field-binding field-name="likes" identifier="likes" />
> </pattern>
> </forall>
>
> </lhs>
>
> Mark
>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>>>> rules-dev(a)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
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)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
6:12 a.m.
On 12/05/2011 05:05, Michael Neale wrote:
Is there a useful subset as "proper" XML and leave the long
tail for some catch all tag?
I guess depends who wants this, for what purpose ;) I am guessing tooling /GUIs mostly,
with a little bit of interchange?
What's in Drools 4.0 XML probably is that
useful subset.
Mark
Sent from my phone.
On 12/05/2011, at 1:57 PM, Mark Proctor<mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
> if you want full 100% xml, you'll first need to define a full expression
> language in XML - as Drools DRL now supports freeform expressions. If
> someone wants to work on that first, we can see how to utilise it's
> namespace inside of patterns.
>
> Jess XML works as it's expr language is simple. Drools 4.0 worked as
> it's expression language is simpl. With drools 5.2 we now allow any free
> form expression, and thus it's not so simple.
>
> Mark
> On 11/05/2011 10:33, Pierre wrote:
>> Mark, All,
>>
>> AFAIK, xdrl is used for systems to exchange rules (perhaps for storing too).
This, as opposed to human use, for which XML can be quite awkward to say the least. This
to say that putting readability as a major factor might make us miss the main point.
>>
>> For humans<expr>status == state</expr> is nicer. However, for
systems interaction it's pretty terrible. It's some form of half use of XML where
the expression itself can only be validated or transformed with considerable efforts (e.g.
regex) when xml tags would allow using standard XML tools (e.g. XPATH). I've got
examples of this in the rule translation console: http://yieldrif.appspot.com/ (shameless
plug!).
>>
>> Let's have a look at other XML rule descriptions (please note that I
don't imply that these are 100% valid expressions in their respective languages):
>>
>> JessML
>>
>> <pattern>
>> <name>Order</name>
>> <binding>o</binding>
>> <slot>
>> <name>total</name>
>> <test>
>> <type>eq</type>
>> <conjunction>and</conjunction>
>> <value type='VARIABLE'>__synth0</value>
>> </test>
>> <test>
>> <type>eq</type>
>> <conjunction>and</conjunction>
>> <funcall>
>> <name>></name>
>> <value type='VARIABLE'>__synth0</value>
>> <value type='INTEGER'>100</value>
>> </funcall>
>> </test>
>> </slot>
>> </pattern>
>>
>> RIF-PRD
>> <formula>
>> <name>Order</name>
>> <formula>
>> <Equal>
>> <left>
>> <Var>total</Var>
>> </left>
>> <right>
>> <Var>-var-__synth2</Var>
>> </right>
>> </Equal>
>> <Equal>
>> <left>
>> <Var>total</Var>
>> </left>
>> <right>
>> <Expr>
>> <op>
>> <Const
type="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri">http://www.w3.org/2007...
>> </op>
>> <args ordered="yes">
>> <Var>-var-__synth2</Var>
>> <Var>100</Var>
>> </args>
>> </Expr>
>> </right>
>> </Equal>
>> </formula>
>> </formula>
>>
>> I hope this helps,
>> Pierre
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:11:24 +0100
>> From: Mark Proctor<mproctor(a)codehaus.org>
>> Subject: Re: [rules-dev] xdrl fixes/enhancements
>> To:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> Message-ID:<4DC8F32C.7080205@codehaus.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> On 10/05/2011 09:07, Mark Proctor wrote:
>>
>>>> On 10/05/2011 08:10, Veit Guna wrote:
>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any chance that this could be reviewed and maybe integrated
into the
>>>>>> release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2672
>>>> I'm in two minds on this. Edson and I are thinking of changing the
xml
>>>> parser to just be:
>>>> <Pattern object-type="xxxx">
>>>> <expr>......</expr>
>>>> <expr>......</expr>
>>>> <expr>......</expr>
>>>> </Pattern>
>>>>
>>>> With any valid expression allwed in expr, i.e. any combinatino of ||,
>>>> &&, method calls, +, - etc. Which follows what we've done
with free-form
>>>> drl.
>>>> Our current approach to normalising expressions in XMl isn't
working too
>>>> well, and the more we extropolate that the worse it gets:
>>>> <dro:pattern object-type="String">
>>>> <dro:and-constraint-connective>
>>>> <dro:field-constraint field-name="this">
>>>> <dro:literal-restriction evaluator="!="
value="null"/>
>>>> </dro:field-constraint>
>>>> <dro:field-constraint field-name="this.toLowerCase">
>>>> <dro:literal-restriction evaluator="=="
value="true"/>
>>>> </dro:field-constraint>
>>>> </dro:and-constraint-connective>
>>>> <dro:from>
>>>>
<dro:expression>fctv_17263.getHeaderValues("X-My-Header");
>>>> </dro:expression>
>>>> </dro:from>
>>>> </dro:pattern>
>>>>
>>>> But I do recognise that you patch might give a lifeline to existing
XML
>>>> users....
>> I should add that I ripped out most of the handler validation
>> parent/peer stuff already. This was necessary to get the new compiler
>> working, and<expr> actually already works, see DumperTest.
>> <lhs>
>> <forall>
>> <pattern object-type="State">
>> <field-binding field-name="state" identifier="state"
/>
>> </pattern>
>>
>> <pattern object-type="Person">
>> <expr>
>> status == state
>> </expr>
>> <field-binding field-name="likes" identifier="likes"
/>
>> </pattern>
>> </forall>
>>
>> </lhs>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>>>>> rules-dev(a)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
>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-dev mailing list
>> rules-dev(a)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
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
4987
days inactive
4988
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Mark Proctor -
Michael Neale -
Pierre