Activity

From 02/18/2025 to 03/19/2025

01:21 PM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Greg Shah wrote:
> > Still looking for the *Automatic Null Checking* implementation to expand its documentation.
> ... Eric Faulhaber
01:04 PM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Octavian Adrian Gavril wrote:
> Eric, is *Automatic Null Checking* related to code sections similar to this?
>
> ... Eric Faulhaber
10:26 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Yes, that works. Greg Shah
10:16 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Is it OK if I start with the items mentioned in the table in [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Rule-Sets#Pipeline-and-Ruleset-Profil... Octavian Adrian Gavril
08:27 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Question from Octavian:
> Should I configure ConfigLoader and Compiler to track each .rules file/.xml file/rule-se... Greg Shah

05:44 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: Ovidiu, I will be honest, I don't know. I just created a patch that prints the keys in a file, and that's it, I didn'... Radu Apetrii

01:11 PM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: Radu,
I had peeked at the list you compiled. I am puzzled by something: why are there customer-specific values saved... Ovidiu Maxiniuc
07:20 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: Remove the customer-specific stuff (you can leave behind description of what was removed) and post it in #9721. Greg Shah
07:16 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: Greg Shah wrote:
> We need to post that somewhere else, it has customer table names in it. Also, this is better don... Radu Apetrii
06:41 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: We need to post that somewhere else, it has customer table names in it. Also, this is better done in a FWD sub-proje... Greg Shah
05:04 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: Here's a list of all annotations that were identified in at least one customer application. They are already sorted i... Radu Apetrii

01:14 PM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: > If the point is for TRPL to be independent of what the annotations are, can a provider for the annotations be plug... Greg Shah
11:03 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: If the point is for TRPL to be independent of what the annotations are, can a provider for the annotations be plugge... Constantin Asofiei
10:54 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: It is an interesting idea.
Pros:
* There would be a simple way to check if an annotation name was valid.
* Pe... Greg Shah
10:41 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: The main reason is the performance of the @AnnotateAst.annotations@ map - this was optimized in the past, especially ... Constantin Asofiei
10:33 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: Because I'm currently working on gathering all annotation types (or as many as I can find), this idea was brought up.... Radu Apetrii
10:28 AM Feature #9770 (New): Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum: Radu Apetrii

09:03 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Eric, is *Automatic Null Checking* related to code sections similar to this?... Octavian Adrian Gavril

08:01 PM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: > Still looking for the *Automatic Null Checking* implementation to expand its documentation.
Eric: Can you please... Greg Shah
07:57 PM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: > I've updated the description of the first two features from [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Expressions#Features|Expression Feat... Greg Shah

06:50 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: I added some documentation for *Property Notation* feature. Still looking for the *Automatic Null Checking* implement... Octavian Adrian Gavril

09:24 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Greg Shah wrote:
> I'm worried that these [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Expressions#Features|Expression Features]] are not docu... Octavian Adrian Gavril

09:53 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Octavian Adrian Gavril wrote:
> I've reviewed [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Expressions]] along with the associated code and it... Greg Shah
09:49 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Look for any location that instantiates @new PatternEngine()@. For example, in @TransformDriver.processTrees()@. Greg Shah
09:44 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Greg, where is @PatternEngine.main@ called in order to run the entire TRPL rule-set? I saw some targets in @build_db.... Octavian Adrian Gavril
08:46 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: I've reviewed [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Expressions]] along with the associated code and it seems fully documented to me. I'... Octavian Adrian Gavril
05:10 AM Feature #1745 (WIP): review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Octavian Adrian Gavril

09:09 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: I reviewed @ConfigLoader.java@ along with [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Rule-Sets]] and these are some features that I found und... Octavian Adrian Gavril

04:48 PM Feature #1747: evaluate Scala for suitability as the basis for TRPL as a DSL: At one point (15? years ago now) I tested the performance of Groovy vs Java and found that Groovy was several orders ... Greg Shah
08:56 AM Feature #1747: evaluate Scala for suitability as the basis for TRPL as a DSL: This crossed my way a couple a weeks ago and now I am feeling guilty that I did not make a post in time. But maybe it... Alexandru Lungu
11:40 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0: Our existing documentation is here:
* [[p2j:Writing TRPL Rule-Sets]] - This defines the language at the level of s... Greg Shah

Also available in: Atom

TRPL