I don't think there is a good reason to get rid of dependency either, we absolutely need to be able to build a new version going forward. Just because it hasn't changed doesn't mean it won't.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 3:20 PM Arthur Naseef <artnas...@apache.org> wrote: > I agree with Justin here. What is the need to remove the dependency on > javacc - especially since it is build-time only? > > Art > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 1:11 PM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > In what sense is JavaCC a "dependency of the activemq-client package"? > It's > > not a Maven dependency, and it's not shipped with the broker. It's simply > > part of the build process and represents a near-zero maintenance burden. > > > > I'm against checking in the generated source and removing the integration > > with JavaCC for the following reasons: > > > > - You never know what changes will be required in the future. Generally > > speaking, you'd want to modify the JavaCC input rather than the JavaCC > > output in that case. > > - If there is ever any improvement to JavaCC we won't benefit from it. > > - There is no real downside to keeping the existing structure in place. > > > > Artemis uses the same basic process to generate the selector parser, and > it > > uses JavaCC 7.0.13 without issue. > > > > What is the benefit of removing the integration and checking in the > > generated code? > > > > > > Justin > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 3:49 AM Ken Liao <kenlia...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > Recently, I am diving into the SelectorParser.java generated by > javacc. I > > > am wondering, do we want to keep maintaining javacc as a dependency of > > the > > > activemq-client package? > > > > > > In another word, the grammar of the JMS selector hasn't changed (last > > time > > > the change made to the grammar definition file SelectorParser.jj is > > > changing the namespace to jakarta in the main branch). Would it be > easier > > > to just commit the generated java file as source and remove the javacc > > > dependency? > > > > > > If we do want to keep it as a dependency, the latest stable release of > > > javacc is version 7. I can upgrade javacc to version 7 to check if it > > > breaks the build and tests. I will create a PR on it soon if there's no > > > objection. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ken > > > > > >
