Hi all, I've never used SableCC or JavaCC so I cannot compare, but I'm using ANTLR a lot. ANTLR is highly customizable and has a very strong community. It's integrated development environment offers a debugger and visualization of grammar ambiguities. It's not only simple to setup and use, it also offers all the comfort you can reasonably dream of when developing grammars.
Maybe that a tool like JarJar could reduce the pain of depending on one more library (with all possible conflicts that could happen to FOP users). Because code generation has some drawbacks (at least in terms of build complexity) you may be interested by JParsec, which creates parsers dynamically from pure Java code. Disclaimer: never used it. http://jparsec.codehaus.org Hope this will help you to do a reasonable choice. c. -----Message d'origine----- De : berger....@gmail.com [mailto:berger....@gmail.com] De la part de Max Berger Envoyé : mardi 29 septembre 2009 13:00 À : fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org Objet : Re: Questionable whether font-shorthand grammar LL(1) Hi Vincent, 2009/9/29 Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com>: >> How about specifing the grammer and using a tool such as JavaCC to >> generate the actual parser? This way you could focus more complete >> grammer and have to spend less time writing the parser. > That would be the same as using ANTLR. I feel that this is a bit > overkill for just parsing the font shorthand property, although that may > prove to be useful for other properties that can accept complex > expressions. > That said, JavaCC is an interesting suggestion, I didn’t think of it. If > a choice had to be made between ANTLR and JavaCC, which one would win? ANTLR: - easy to use - requires runtime linking of jar [1] (a *huge* disadvantage imo) JavaCC: - very sparse documentation - generates standalone java classes SableCC: - better documentation - LGPL (And therefore maybe not feasible, although it would only be used at compile time and not runtime) [1] http://beust.com/weblog/archives/000145.html Max __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 4466 (20090929) __________ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
