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. -W On 26/07/2012, Mark Proctor <mproc...@codehaus.org> 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 >> rules-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
