hadoop-pig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Gates <ga...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: switching to different parser in Pig
Date Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:52:08 GMT

If understand your comments correctly you aren't chiming in on whether  
we should switch parsers, just that you would like there to be a  
published interface of what pig latin syntax trees look like so you  
could generate them in other tools and then feed them into pig.  Is  
that correct?  So whether we switch parsing technologies or not is not  
of interest to you, only the interfaces we expose?


On Feb 12, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:

> In general, it would be really, really nice if it were easy to build
> abstract Pig syntax trees outside of the normal parser.
> For instance, I find the fact that pig is not a full scale scripting
> language incredibly confining.  I would love to be able to build a  
> DSL in
> groovy that let me use groovy for scripting, but still execute pig  
> jobs
> easily.  If I could build Pig syntax trees easily, then I would be,  
> as they
> say, in pig heaven.
> That would also let the switch to a different parsing technology  
> happen
> gradually rather than all at once.  Two different grunt interpreters  
> could
> coexist for a short time while the new one is proved out.
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Olga Natkovich <olgan@yahoo- 
> inc.com> wrote:
>> Pig Developers,
>> Pig currently uses javacc for parsing pig commands. We have found
>> several shortcomings with using javacc. In particular,
>> (1) Lack of good documentation which makes it hard to and time  
>> consuming
>> to learn javacc and make changes to Pig grammar
>> (2) No easy way to customize error handling and error messages
>> (3) Single path that performs both tokenizing and parsing
>> We are considering to use JFlex and Cup which are Java versions of  
>> Lex
>> and Bison instead. The main advantage of this transition is proven,  
>> well
>> known and well understood technology and input format. In addition,  
>> it
>> addresses the issues stated above.
>> One problem with the transition is that JFlex and Cup have GPL  
>> license
>> that is not compatible with Apache license. The workaround could be  
>> that
>> we don't commit the tools into SVN and instead developers who need to
>> update grammar would install them on their own. Note, that we can  
>> commit
>> the input grammar as well as the output of the grammar into SVN which
>> means that for developers just compiling code or making non-parser
>> changes, there will be no impact.
>> Please, comment on whether you think this is a reasonable change.
>> Thanks,
>> Olga
> -- 
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
> 4600 Bohannon Drive, Suite 220
> Menlo Park, CA 94025
> www.deepdyve.com
> 650-324-0110, ext. 738
> 858-414-0013 (m)

View raw message