On 29/01/2013, Mark Proctor <[email protected]> wrote: > One of the reasons this came up was due to round tripping from the guided > editor to drl text format. This is so the guided editor does not use it's > own proprietary xml format, but instead uses the .drl directly. > > Round tripping DRL is not so hard. Round tripping DSLs is much harder, and I > suspect will be hard to get fool proof regex. Also we would at a minimum > require an escape in the DRL to delimit a DSL sentence. > > If you think DSLs are useful, I think we can leave them in, with the caveat > of the escape. Sound ok?
Not sure what you mean with the "escape". If you need to know, in the DRL created from a DSL, from what DSL phrase what DRL was created, annotations packed in comments could provide any necessary information. -W > > Mark > On 29 Jan 2013, at 05:30, Wolfgang Laun <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> in my talk at RulesFest 2011 I've demonstrated that DSLs in their >> current form are >> indeed useful, perhaps not quite as easy to use as marketing hype >> promises. The current DSL process exploits regular expressions in a >> clever way, but this has limits. (Programming in something close to >> natural language has been an ongoing >> dream since Rear Admiral G. Hopper's fine achievement, but no >> remarkable progress has been made in half a century.) >> >> I have presented DSL rules more than once to an audience, and it seems >> that getting non-geeks to appreciate rules is made easier this way. >> >> There is nothing in the current DSL that depends on DRL except the >> undisputed keywords delimiting a rule. I can see no reason why DSL >> shouldn't just stay the way it is: the documentation is fairly complete >> (much >> more than for some other Expert features) and it hasn't needed many >> bugfixes I'm aware of. >> >> Cheers >> Wolfgang >> >> On 29/01/2013, Mark Proctor <[email protected]> wrote: >>> How would people feel if we removed DSLs from 6.0? There is no decision >>> either way, but I wanted to see if people liked or disliked the idea. >>> >>> My reason for this is I don't believe DSLs in their current form, beyond >>> demo ware, are useful. They need a lot more work to turn them into >>> guided >>> structured documents, we don't have the people to focus on that right >>> now, >>> and no one from the community has taken this on. >>> >>> I'd rather see them removed, until they can be done properly. >>> >>> Mark >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
