Can the Ruby generator be run from within Maven? That is, will JRuby handle it? For the same reasons that we use jython...
On 17/09/2007, Alan Conway <[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? > > Mea culpa, here's why I did it: > > The pre-velocity java generator was too complicated and inflexible. Main > problems: > - primitive templates required changing the generator itself for most > non-trivial changes to the generated code. > - ability to create "multi-version" classes, which is not required by C > ++, made the generator extremely complex and difficult to modify. > > I introduced the ruby generator because it was taking way to long to get > the Java generator to generate what I needed. I am confident that > writing the generator + creating new templates (and porting old ones) > took less time than trying to hack the Java generator to do the job. > Everyone who has used the new generator (i.e. Myself & Gordon) agrees > that it is a major improvement in productivity. > > On ruby vs. python: there's probably no strong non-religious reason to > prefer one over the other. I use ruby because I had already done some > tinkering in ruby and I needed a solution quickly. I accept that python > might have been a better choice, if someone is willing to port the ruby > generator and templates to python I'll be happy to switch. > > (Aside on multi-version: In C++ we will not generate multi-version > classes. Rather we will generate a single-version class for each version > and construct instances of the appropriate class family during > connection negotiation.) > > > if indeed it is really work writing a > > generator in the first place. > > The amount of effort we have expended in > > creating generators we must have been better just writing it by hand. > > It is worth it when it saves time. I have no doubt that both the old > java generator and the new ruby generator have saved us a lot of time > and will continue to do so. > > > The framing has only significantly changed once in the last year but > > we have had at least 4 generators! > > The generators generate code from the XML classes/methods, not the > framing rules. They have changed rapidly and significantly over the last > year and I'm quite confident that we would have had a _much_ harder time > dealing with that if all the generated code was hand-written. > > Cheers, > Alan. > >
