Oh...yes... ok, I didn't do extensive testing... the clean build went
through without complications using JavaCC 3.2, but I'd need to compare
the results and if they differ in more then the jdk1.5 related naming
issues, either think hard about the implications or do a real test :-)
Cheers, Mika
Btw... I just resolved Tucker to be P T Withington ... that's good
because I didn't succeed searching for a tool named "Tucker" to convert
from Python to Java ... blame the German culture where we all have
standard names like Hans, Karl and Heinz :-)
Tucker: This week? Cool! As I never learnt Python, this area of the app
has somewhat of a black hole for me.
Oliver Steele schrieb:
On Nov 17, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Mika Göckel wrote:
Hi!
I recommend getting rid of JavaCC 2.1 and move to 3.2 because 2.1
uses "enum" as variable name, which is not jdk1.5 compatible.
JavaCC 4.0 is in beta since May and I have no idea when they will
move on, so I won't change to 4.0 yet.
This is an excellent recommendation. Can you test whether JavaCC 3.2
simply works if we drop it in? If it does, this will be very easy.
The same applies for "assert" and Jython (http://sourceforge.net/
tracker/?group_id=12867&atid=112867&func=detail&aid=1005593), Jython
2.2 is alpha since July this year... should we try to use the 2.2a1,
build our own version of 2.1 with a patch, or wait?
We have some custom changes to Jython (to work around an obscure
problem with jar files), that might have to be ported to a more
recent Jython. However, as Tucker said, we are on the verge of being
able to remove the use of jython from the production system. It is
also used in the doc tools, but this use of Jython doesn't require
our patches. So I recommend waiting until Tucker's Jython excision
is done (this week?), and then trying the tools against the newest
Jython.
Best,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
Laszlo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
