On 9 Dec 2001, Nathan E Probst wrote:
> Awww...phooey! Why the sudden change of heart? I like the looks of the
> syntax below very much. XML, I suppose, is easier to parse, etc... Is
> that temporary arrangement?
Mostly due to ease of implementation to get something going.
Nothing will limit future possibilities. This is just
one-of-many-possible syntaxes (synti?).
Using a non-XML syntax, the sequence is the lex the characters into
tokens, assemble sequences of tokens into parse structures, and then
build an abstract syntax tree (AST). I walk the AST to then do my
condition expression analysis.
No problem up to this point.
The problem is then re-assembling the various nodes of the AST
that represent the THEN block back into just one Big Ass String,
for passing back to BeanShell for evaluation.
That's possible, but requires a fair bit of busy-work, to have
a tree-walker that can accumlate abstract tokens back into text.
Using XML, I can treat the <then> element as opaque string content.
Though, so far, the vote is 1-0 in favor of the original non-XML syntax,
which is also my personal preference. If you don't mind a 'schedule slip'
of about a week, we can go with the non-XML format initially.
-bob
_______________________________________________
drools-interest mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/drools-interest
