[rules-dev] A syntax for rules

[Wolfgang Laun]

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 at 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 at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>