I second the idea of using a single Java parser everywhere. I wouldn't bet on QDox since it seems unmaintained. Eventually it would be nice if we had a grammar that supports both Groovy and Java files, but that's a lot more work.
2015-06-23 9:50 GMT+02:00 [email protected] < [email protected]>: > 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> >> > >
