And by "go away", I mean "not get enhanced". -Heinz
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Al Byers <bye...@automationgroups.com> wrote: > I think having a scripting language that can be expressed in markup > and managed via an xsd schema is a powerful feature. I would hate to > see it go away. > > -Al > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Anil Patel <anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com> > wrote: >> Adrian, >> Thanks for starting this thread. >> >> While we all love mini-lang, I am wondering if we should really ask >> ourselves if we really want to overhaul mini-lang or should we consider >> alternates. From what I know, Not many people like to build application >> using mini lang. Many end up using Java or Groovy. >> >> Thanks and Regards >> Anil Patel >> HotWax Media Inc >> >> On Mar 5, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> Mini-language has evolved a lot over the years. Most of the development has >>> occurred on an as-needed basis, so there is no clear design or >>> implementation - things just get tacked on over time. >>> >>> A recent discussion has opened up the possibility to rework the >>> mini-language <set> element. From my perspective, that task is long overdue. >>> >>> Also, the schemas are out of date, and they are unnecessarily complicated. >>> So, those need a thorough going over. >>> >>> While we are at it, why don't we create a draft design document based on >>> the current implementation, and then use it to look for other ways >>> mini-language can be improved? We can all offer suggestions and comments, >>> agree on a final design, finalize the draft, and then implement it in code. >>> The design document then becomes the developer's reference. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>
