shale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rahul Akolkar" <>
Subject Re: [dialog] Using SCXML to describe Shale dialogs
Date Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:55:26 GMT
On 8/24/06, Craig McClanahan <> wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Rahul Akolkar <> 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.)

Yes, that makes good sense to me.

> 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.

OK, I will look into this. The only wrinkle that comes to mind is the
dialog-config.xml contains many dialogs (hence many SCXML documents).
I should have a better perspective on the XSLT transform early next


> Craig

View raw message