Hi Paul,
even if this topic is not directly relevant to us (we went 100% Groovy
in our project some time ago), going for an 80% - 90% approach (by
basically introducing something like an "AST-transform-interface"
concept), instead of forever waiting for the "perfect" solution (that
most likely never comes), seems like a good & workable idea here to me.
Cheers,
mg
Am 29.04.2026 um 05:54 schrieb Paul King:
I updated the GEP and created a spike. In the spike I tried 4
transforms: @Sortable, @ToString, @TupleConstructor, @Lazy.
The "shape" of what they later fully inject is added during CONVERSION
and appear in the stubs. Basically, any AST transform, on an opt-in
basis, can inject a stub at CONVERSION and fill it out properly during
the normal AST transform call.
If folks like the idea, I can see what additional transforms this
might work for. It isn't as fancy as Jochen's original proposal, and
it isn't a solution that covers every case, but so far it seems to
cover quite a few cases.
It won't cover situations where the shape of members added in later
injections can't be known in advance. So, there will still be some
caveats but far fewer. And it does mean we (and our users) have to
write the stub injection code for each affected transform if we (they)
want to gain the extra visibility in their stubs.
Cheers, Paul.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 7:17 AM Paul King <[email protected]> wrote:
I created a very early alpha GEP capturing a version of Eric's idea:
https://github.com/apache/groovy-website/blob/asf-site/site/src/site/wiki/GEP-21.adoc
https://groovy.apache.org/wiki/GEP-21.html
It was mostly Claude and I haven't vetted it properly yet, so it
might have some holes/hallucinations, but it should serve as a
suitable starting point for an on-going conversation.
I would also be keen to help progress this, but more than happy if
someone else wants to take the lead.
Cheers, Paul.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 1:53 AM Jochen Theodorou
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/27/26 16:35, Milles, Eric (TR Technology) via dev wrote:
[...]
> In general, I think the expectation is that we offer a
single source
> folder that can have bi-directional dependencies between
groovy and java
> sources.
it would actually be interesting to know more about the
expectations of
our users here
> In practice, this has probably reached a good-enough state.
> The cost of supporting the last 20% -- features like @Delegate,
> @Builder, and so on -- may or may not be worth the
complexity or risk.
agreed
> I have considered the idea of split-phase AST transforms.
For example,
> if a transform can run in CONVERSION or SEMANTIC_ANALYSIS to
add some
> tags (annotations, interfaces, metadata, ...) or stub
elements (fields,
> methods, inner classes, ...). Then a second pass of the
transform runs
> in CANONICALIZATION or INSTRUCTION_SELECTION to finish off
the code
> generation. This sort of thing could help with java stubs.
yes, plus the transform could carry a marker interface that
shows it is
joint compilation friendly.
bye Jochen
