Thanks everyone for their feedback! I have created this Jira ticket to
track
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AMQ/issues/AMQ-9648?filter=allissues
Thanks,
Ken
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 4:15 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I already responded once with a sh
I already responded once with a short response saying I don't think it's a
good idea to remove the parser but I will elaborate more. Reading over this
thread again I think there are really two independent things being
discussed here and should be considered separately.
1) Removing javacc as a buil
Hi
You are right Art: there’s no issue for now.
We are not in the rush to update. I would just create a Jira to track it
for later purpose.
Regards
JB
Le sam. 18 janv. 2025 à 14:24, Arthur Naseef a
écrit :
> Is the generated code problematic, or are we talking hypotheticals here?
>
> Not tryi
Is the generated code problematic, or are we talking hypotheticals here?
Not trying to discourage updating - but instead trying to understand need
here:
why does javacc need to be updated?
Ther javacc grammar file is the original code, and the generated java is an
output of that. If we want to h
Do we really need to generate this code ?
It's a dependency of the build (not the packages dependency), but it
could be problematic regarding the code generated for updated JDK
versions (JDK11 and beyond, especially JDK23 at some point).
As we don't generate the code often, I don't see the benefi
I think the maintenance burden here is making sure the javacc version is up
to date. Currently ActiveMQ Classic is using 3.2. That said, I am fine with
keeping it as it is for now
I think a first step is to upgrade the version to 7.
Thanks for feedback folks!
Ken
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 3:16 PM
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 wrote:
> I agree with Justin here. What is the need to re
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 wrote:
> In what sense is JavaCC a "dependency of the activemq-client package"? It's
> not a Maven dependency, and it's no
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
w
Hi Ken
That’s a good point.
As we don’t have much change there, I think it’s reasonable to have the
generate source code in the repo and remove the javacc dependency.
+1 from me.
Thanks
Regards
JB
Le ven. 17 janv. 2025 à 10:41, Ken Liao a écrit :
> Hi folks,
>
> Recently, I am diving into th
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 definit
11 matches
Mail list logo
