On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 19:52, David Reiss <[email protected]> wrote: >> This has been >> a hassle for httpd and svn... those two projects generally do *not* >> provide binaries, and rely on downstream packagers. Of course, we >> could also rely on packagers. > > That sounds fine to me. > >> I'm more comfortable with C++ than Java, but it seems easier to use >> compiler subsystems (like ANTLR) and other tools in Java. > > My understanding was that ANTLR serves the same purpose as lex and yacc, > which are already used by Thrift. > >> And back to >> the deployment question regarding dependencies: will the packagers >> have all the deps available? Compare that to shipping one .jar. > > The Thrift compiler doesn't have any runtime dependencies other than > system libraries. I think the few compile-time dependencies it has > can be eliminated far more easily than rewriting several thousand > lines of code.
I tend to agree, but a Java implementation *is* intriguing. I would suggest that the Java-based compiler be checked into a new subdir for people to look at an experiment with. (I like to avoid a branch if experimental code can safely live compartmentalized on trunk) Then we can make a better-informed decision as a community on where to go. If somebody can say, "I'll get rid of Boost", then I'd be +1 on sticking to C++. Cheers, -g
