On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:12:54 +0100 Julian Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > Not to put a spanner in the works, but is integrating with ecj possible now? > > I notice the mail quoted above says 'in the future', and, given this and > > Tom's original proposal, I'm wondering whether using ecj is reliant on > > GPLv3. > > If this is the case, then it won't be available until at least January next > > year... > > Yes, I should have addressed this in my previous message. I didn't miss > that part :) > > I plan to isolate the parser behind a well-defined interface. This way, > when Gjdoc V2 is ready to replace V1 officially and the licensing issues > aren't sorted out by then, it will be easy to swap it out in favor of an > alternative. > > Since adapting the ecj parser for Gjdoc doesn't look like a lot of work, > not much would be lost in this case. And by starting out with ecj I can > concentrate on architecture and design without having to worry about > parsing at this point. > > So as I see it, the ultimate choice of which parser to use for the final > version of Gjdoc V2 can be safely postponed, with ecj as an intermediary > solution (and "standard parser" any replacement parser can be compared > against). > > Julian > Yes, abstracting the parser away from the rest of the code makes perfect sense. Cheers, -- Andrew :-) Please avoid sending me Microsoft Office (e.g. Word, PowerPoint) attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Support OpenDocument instead. Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html public class gcj extends Freedom implements Java { ... } "Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us with politics' respond those who don't want to learn." -- Richard Stallman The views expressed above are representative of my own personal opinions, and not necessarily those of the University of Sheffield.
pgpDXAOOmazwv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
