[rules-dev] Enhancements to Rule XML (BRL)

[Michael Neale]

yeah that makes sense - but I think you may be underestimating the work on
the tooling side.

working off XML is easier for tools - as extra meta data is needed for the
GUI that would not be there in the DRL (so working directly off a DRL would
be like swing GUIs on java - they need lots of comments/meta data added) -
so working of an official/canonical XML format (if based on RuleML) would be
ideal.

However, I don't think a timeline to this would mesh up with what was being
proposed !

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org>wrote:

>  In reality I'd like to see the BRL killed. We already have two poorly
> maintained xml formats, neither keep up to date with DRL.
>
> BRL was initially designed as a simple xml, as we believed tooling wouldn't
> want full DRL. As it turns out most people do actually just want a GUI
> builder that supports full DRL.
>
> As a result I'd like to see an investment in a new XML format that future
> proofs, for our designs for drools 6:
> http://community.jboss.org/wiki/DroolsLanguageEnhancements
>
> I've been reluctant to start my own XML here, as i'd like to see us work
> with the RuleML group in adopting their xml (probably with feedback on
> needed changes) as our defualt XML for Drools.  Although for the immediate
> need for improving the guided editor we have no choice but to continue to
> extend BRL, but those doing so should probably have it in mind that it's a
> temporary solution.
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/08/2010 03:34, Amit Kumar wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> Sorry for barging in by subscribing to this developers alias
>
> We are a Intellectual capital Management team in Cisco Systems. We have
> been using our own engines to do specific jobs for past 10 years, as part of
> future growth we have decided to do away with our own custom engines and use
> the drools engine to do Inference & event management rules. Good choice ..
> :)
>
> We have evaluated the capabilities of rule authoring UIs in drools and have
> faced some resistance from our Subject Matter Experts to build our own UIs
> .. basically some templates which they can fill out instead of understanding
> the complexities of Guvnor. Also we felt that some layer of abstraction
> could be provided above guvnor UI since it does not yet provide support for
> IC (Fusion based)
>
> Approach:
> We are trying to put in some extensions to BRL to support the fusion
> usecases and any other which we need. The reason we are doing it to BRL is
> the same as yours .. that UI editors work with XML kind of structure instead
> of a DRL file.
> So eventually we would also enhance the BRL->DRL converters and provide
> support in BRL to ObjectContainment (Facts containing collection of facts)
> and provide testing capabilities for inference and event IC.
>
> Concern:
> If we make any enhancements to BRL then we would want to integrate back to
> community code so we can utilize any extensions to the BRL, DRL and
> converters which are done by community and do not paint ourselves in a
> corner.
> We can share our work to provide ideas back to community and may be we can
> provide some other enhancements for the community.
>
> Can you kindly guide us on how to make these enhancements and how do we
> contribute to the code. and any standards and guidelines pages.
>
> Regards,
> Amit
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>


-- 
Michael D Neale
home: www.michaelneale.net
blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20100812/a84ba7a9/attachment.html