_______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

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&gt; 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 > _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

Last time I looked, the classes representing rules weren't documented at all. Edson said, "Later". It isn't later yet, is it? -

On 26/07/2012, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: > On 26/07/2012 05:53, Wolfgang Laun wrote: >> 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. > We will definitely provide a drl5.5 translator. I'm reluctant to do a > 5.5 executable parser, because we'll have to maintain it indefinitely; > and all the cost that is involved with this. And also restructuring of > all our test frameworks to ensure both 5.5 and 6.0 continue to be tested. > > I'm not say that we won't do a 5.5 executable parser, when the time > comes it's open for debate. I'm just very apprehensive about it. Let's > leave this discussion until the time is relevant, we can start a new > thread on it then. > > Either way I'd definitely encourage your work (and others if they want > to do their own language) as independant language efforts. > > Mark >> -W >> >> On 26/07/2012, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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