[rules-dev] DSL expansion: ready for commit

[Mark Proctor]

On 15/12/2010 10:16, Mark Proctor wrote:
> On 15/12/2010 09:38, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>> 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.
> yaml looks pretty nice these days, as the underlying document storage 
> format.
There are two approaches to schemas in yaml that I know of:
http://rx.codesimply.com/
http://www.kuwata-lab.com/kwalify/

Mark
>
> Mark
>>
>> -W
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15 December 2010 10:18, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org 
>> <mailto:mproctor at 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 at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:ed.tirelli at 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 at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     rules-dev mailing list
>>     rules-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>     https://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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20101215/e5c22979/attachment.html