Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-groovy-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-groovy-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 224ED17FFA for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:51:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 40515 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jun 2015 10:46:26 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-groovy-dev-archive@groovy.apache.org Received: (qmail 28210 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jun 2015 10:46:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@groovy.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 5007 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jun 2015 09:43:58 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:43:58 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of blackdrag@gmx.org designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) Received: from [212.227.15.19] (HELO mout.gmx.net) (212.227.15.19) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:41:43 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([85.180.99.231]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LikQP-1YWtaw0ZX3-00d239 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:43:31 +0200 Message-ID: <55892B8A.1070806@gmx.org> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:48:58 +0200 From: Jochen Theodorou User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: java parser usage in Groovy References: <5588DF19.9010708@gmx.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:vgYnr/Z9ahQQcxzUc1LdXy7XrCv07nK+emoRQh7BOom7zqw9Etj TVaAYxf4xvrpGDND6yRh2JKH+Rk50KK9m3bDkfxYXPS1ejOiFScQJ4YqUrQl0xlfU4fIa+t qsxl6TtVIcweDwcDtb0md0CZP006dAikH/dNCHrsrR1/hKUcAJgYlyy1Akhx6fY1JCczGvd CYquQqtXMcvTiEI5oZcRQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:aXeS8z5ye4A=:8wfz2ope1hekrwfJzhXWau koF3kpCsKg98TDUF/QH1vaJIBMVjZ8MSR1qfAvPmtj1IPqUHBjbLBVnrdMKyu/0WfLoYeZjGM Q4+8+FnygtF8J1flXI1veq4l/qmSjCzixsysi0ckzkWUwjZWARnlCh/blRwIHiC6Qdgq9/jDC SCx/wlOuKYnN0ATQ8vJlGsiru8fB/jpB9pNqCjlrKu2u69i4vIz1Qy9UwC01bwtN+vYgmqEAE +SeiKzy5qQf6IiGAJZ3Nwq2bIbL+rM9+BYfKN8IPIprzfr2jvILDrz70kz9SdhwKxz3ODc1mm YOunGdH+af+evJfW/mo5ZNihAZpCRs74FYdv4ESefKpqBC7hMatIf8ELW/+bc9DXh3R9dKY7U ELO2kfZqiFq8IVZ9KVpCsFPn/DyrhbrwqRi3D40LKeGfCLPN4Ug2W4FQRfXvFgGeXI2/J+JJu yilUhi1YSxdFfyzcAku9JAa3oRPYaCmifv3ylRnDz1+Ow1mnB/xiputVr/9q4M2vU0zZjJn/z VtXoYDo93eEgBduANlftERBNAGRUj1ApLeB0BTGfTIERrFlBq9IZZKzsS8UcRb8LDDVUDmi7q 27WJ1v/8+qe72i+lQ9WcTSCtF/59pm2PaenTNvL7NNsRQaEQkGbXIuRv3nhNfeTlJlvvHXxBy DjaOMU6cROs7Vy4tbuIRNMhHX55Erj6FKHKWgjw5cZ2a+GdG2z2Q3Vw9/jVkmCzHN7QQ= X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Am 23.06.2015 09:26, schrieb Guillaume Laforge: > 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) There are not many changes to qdox, yes, but on the other hand, there are not many changes needed as well. Java 8 for example doesn't really differ in the signatures sections from Java 5. Depending on how the parser has been written, it may not care about lambdas and such at all. So it is more about bug fixing. I am pretty sure we can make a parser that will accept java as well as groovy source files to get those signatures. I am also relatively sure we can use the existing antlr4 groovy parser as base for this and more or less strip it down quite a bit. That's of course only if the java2groovy tool is really abandoned. Because that tool requires more then just signatures and javadoc-comments. bye blackdrag -- Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/