On 8/24/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like Shale to support both the current dialog notation and SCXML as stated here [1], and both can use the same underlying engine. The current dialog notation by virtue of being the incumbent, and SCXML because:
[snip] If we go with SCXML under the covers, I'm definitely +1 on having both syntaxes available. That way, we can appeal to the crowd who wants the simplest possible syntax for this stuff, and then potentially seduce them into leveraging the more sophisticated capabilities of the entire state machine later. (Of course, we'd also want to make sure that the features we expose to the developer can also leverage those capabilities.) To that end, it would seem that an XSLT transformation of the existing dialog-config.xml to the SCXML version would be ideal, if it is technically feasible (and I think Rahul and I concluded earlier that it is). That way, I could either build the transformation into my build process (to save a little startup time) or just let the runtime take care of it at application startup. Craig
