On 06/09/07, Andrew Stitcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 08:41 +0100, Martin Ritchie wrote: > > I was going to mention this early but it must have slipped my mind. > > > > Just wondered why we are now using ruby to generate the framing? > > > > Were the xslt, python or java approaches too complicated, inflexible > > or is ruby a better dependency to have? > > IMO ruby and python are about equally convenient dependencies, java is a > very complex dependency to have and is painful to have, if all you want > to do is build the C++ code. I don't know anything about the xslt > generator, but I'd guess that it would be hard to use xlst for any > processing that's complex. As far as I know we've never had a python > generator. > > I think that it would be better to use python for the code generation > just to minimise the total number of dependencies (given that python and > ruby have pretty much equivalent functionality). But now we've got the > generation in ruby it's hardly worth porting just for this reason only. > > > > > I really feel we should have a single method for generating our > > framing across all languages.. > > I used to think the same, but I'm not so sure now, given that the > requirements of the different languages are different. It also means > that the languages are tied together by all depending on the same > generator even though the code generated must be different. > > > if indeed it is really work writing a > > generator in the first place. > > It is surely worthwhile as it means that there is only one source for > the framing - the specification XML which is canonical. Hand writing > this code would be boring, and fraught with errors, not to mention > tedious as there are now approximately 120 classes automatically > generated.
That doesn't mean we could just have a single AMQP framing generator sub-project. Write it in a single language and then commit the output to the relevant language code base. Having ~120 classes automatically generated on every clean build is a tad tedious. > > The amount of effort we have expended in > > creating generators we must have been better just writing it by hand. > > The framing has only significantly changed once in the last year but > > we have had at least 4 generators! > > I can only count 3 (xslt, java, ruby)! > > Andrew > > > -- Martin Ritchie
