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 <
[hidden email]> 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
>>>
[hidden email]
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev>>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
Locked
Drools_6.0.txt (7K) 