> -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Benson [mailto:gudnabr...@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:59 AM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: New Sandbox Component Proposal: Commons JSON > > > > > --- On Thu, 4/30/09, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: New Sandbox Component Proposal: Commons JSON > > To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org> > > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 9:55 AM > > > Why do you consider a dependency > > on Antlr a negative (the runtime is 148k), JSON is a > > formally defined language after all. > > > > I don't know a person face to face who actually can handle > > antlr. Its > > a cool tool, but if you need to create a patch for your > > json lib, it > > can be hell. Plain java is understood by every java > > developer (well, > > most ;-)). > > > > I don't know about folks you (or I) know face-to-face, but I know that > several ASF committers and members have popped up around the ANTLR lists > over the years, including, off the top of my head, myself, Torsten, > O.Ziegermann, H.L. Ship, and probably others. I personally am quite > comfortable with ANTLR 2.x but need to really take the time to play with > ANTLR 3. The argument _for_ using parser generators is that those who use > them feel the grammar is easier to digest (it's smaller) than the > equivalent Java code. It's something else again to debug ANTLR > parsers/treeparsers, but it's far from impossible. Once you get used to > knowing what to look for it's actually fairly easy. I don't say any of > this to disparage Yonik's work on Noggit (I've not looked at it); I am > just airing my understanding of the motivations for using grammars and > parser generators as opposed to hand-writing parsers.
Well, at least, there seems to be some JSON Antlr grammars out there already. Now if I could just find one for COBOL (no, not kidding.) Gary > > -Matt > > > > I always scratch my head when I hear "there are > > dependencies!" when any application I create or use always > > has dependencies. I wonder how much redundancies and bug > > fixes would be removed if, for example, all Apache Java code > > (or even just the Commons code) went the other way and did > > depend on each other. You might argue we would end up in > > 'jar hell' but that might force us to better draw boundaries > > between components and fix bugs :) > > > > > > In maven age I don't feel bad with dependencies, but one > > json lib did > > depend on asm version 1 once, and hibernate upgraded to asm > > version 2, > > and that gave me nightmare. I ended up with opening my json > > package > > and copied all version 1 files into it with own package > > name. I > > recompiled, brought this to my repos and so on. This was > > hell (cause > > my customer didn't want to pay the time). > > > > For me json is so basic, that we can do everything without > > any > > dependencie. And a basic lib should not have any, I think. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Christian > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
