I think QDox is useful for something like GroovyDoc but not a compiler.
[image: --] Corneil du Plessis [image: https://]about.me/corneil <https://about.me/corneil?promo=email_sig> On 23 June 2015 at 09:26, Guillaume Laforge <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jochen, > > A few thoughts... > > 1) It sounds like a good idea to focus on one single Java parser, instead > of two. > > 2) I think we could get rid (completely) of the useless java2groovy usage > and tool altogether (one less place to use a Java parser) > > 3) I'm wondering what is going to be the most up-to-date / practical of > Antlr v4 vs QDox Java parser? > Is QDox still alive? (I notice Paul Hammant migrated QDox from Codehaus to > his Github account) > And is QDox using the latest Java 8 syntax or is it still on an older > version of the Java syntax? > Perhaps the Antlr Java parser would be more up-to-date? (and there's > usually always someone to contribute a new grammar for newer versions of > Java) > > Guillaume > > 2015-06-23 6:22 GMT+02:00 Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]>: > >> Hi all, >> >> we do currently use java parsers in 3 places kind of. One is through Qdox >> for GroovyDoc, one is for joint compilation through javac and another is >> the java-to-groovy tool (or did we remove that?) which uses an antlrv2 >> based parser. >> >> Now in the long term we want to move to antlr4 of course, but also I am >> unhappy with the stub generator based compiler we have for joint >> compilation. And since cooperation tries with javac failed I think it is >> now time to use an alternative approach and parse the java files >> ourselves... Especially now, that we have those class file readers (special >> thanks to Peter Gromov). >> >> Now... there are BSD licenses antlr4 java parser available. There is also >> the yacc based (and java generating) parser from qdox. The question would >> be which one to use. >> >> Assuming we would use the qdox parser, I would need to make modification >> to be able to use it for joint compilation... specifically in the class >> resolution parts. I am not sure this would be still an extension or grow >> into a fork of qdox. >> >> Assuming I would use a stripped down antlr4 java parser, the question >> would be if we wanted to replace qdox or keep it. I mean if we have our own >> parser, then it is a small step to also analyse the comments with it. >> >> So what do you guys think? >> >> bye blackdrag >> >> -- >> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou >> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ >> >> > > > -- > Guillaume Laforge > Groovy Project Manager > Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com> > > Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ > Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ > <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts> >
