Hi Frank, thanks for your follow-up.
As much as I like source code generators, I must confess that I've come to dislike the generation of many almost identical chunks, e.g., varying only in literals. This means that using templates without an "if" in the available macro language is a "weak" tool. Consequently, this triple layering isn't on my "tops" list. Basically, I agree with your assessment, the only caveat being the level of complexity and extend that is convenient to achieve with a DSL. Regards Wolfgang On 9 January 2012 17:08, FrankVhh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry to have kept you waiting. > > If you use plain DRL, you have 1 source of information. If you use DSL, you > add an extra source of information by inserting the data in it. Adding DSL > on top of that, adds a third source of information in the form of a > vocabulary. > > In theory, the more disperse your information, the more difficult it will > be > to maintain. > > Until now, I debugged all templates in the same way. Expand them all > completely and have them outputted to a real DRL file. Than, debug the > outputted file and make corrections in your template accordingly. Here, > imho, there is not much difference in a DSLR template and a DRL template, > provided that you have a stable DSL. This is not a debugging method that I > particullary like, but it gets the job done. > > If you assess the difference between a DSLR and a DRL template, the only > differentiator is the DSL. In that case it comes down to the question > whether you have a stable DSL or not. If your DSL is mature, I would prefer > DSLR over DRL for reasons of understandability to non-technical users. > Unless your template is meant to be hidden from the user. > > Regards, > Frank > > > laune wrote > > > > OK, thanks for the confirmation. > > > > Do you have any comments w.r.t. to usability during development > > (debugging?!) and maintenance? The example is simple enough, but what's > > your feeling? > > > > -W > > > > On 6 January 2012 08:46, FrankVhh <frank.vanhoenshoven@> wrote: > > > >> > >> laune wrote > >> > > >> > What I suggested is a non-standard way of rule authoring, and I just > >> think > >> > that it is possible - I've never tried it. > >> > > >> > >> This should work. I tried it once with Drools 5.0, so I assume it is > >> still > >> OK. > >> > >> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n3637269/voc.dsl voc.dsl > >> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n3637269/Sample.dst Sample.dst > >> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n3637269/DroolsTest.java > >> DroolsTest.java > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Template-Key-in-DSL-tp3634710p3637269.html > >> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rules-users mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rules-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Template-Key-in-DSL-tp3634710p3644953.html > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
