thrift-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Esteve Fernandez <>
Subject Re: Some thoughts about changes to Thrift
Date Fri, 06 Mar 2009 11:03:44 GMT
On Friday 06 March 2009 03:24:23 Mark Slee wrote:
> That's pretty much my fault.

Actually the current Thrift compiler served its puporse quite decently, but 
the coming of new languages and features has made it (along with the 
generators) a bit more complex and less easy to maintain.

> I personally like Java and think it'd be a decent choice, but there do seem
> to be a decent number of people out there building services who seem to
> vehemently hate Java. Lots of *nix systems do not have a JVM or JDK
> installed by default -- and it's pretty annoying for users who aren't
> writing services in Java to have to install it to build the compiler.

I'd argue for writing a parser in Java and use a template engine (Velocity, 
Freemarker, etc.). Why not Python? Dunno :-) I think Java is more widely 
deployed, it has better tools for scanning and parsing and more developers. 
Etch, another incubating project with similar goals to Thrift, uses JavaCC 
for parsing and Velocity as template engine for its compiler and generators, 
even though it also emits C#

Using a template engine would make development of new features and the 
inclusion of more languages much easier. Instead of having to hack a 
generator to add some new feature, we could simply supply a new template 
file. For example, at some point in the future I'd like to build a generator 
for Javascript, and if we used a template engine, it would be a matter of 
writing a minimal generator and a bunch of templates.


View raw message