thrift-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Esteve Fernandez <est...@sindominio.net>
Subject Re: Some thoughts about changes to Thrift
Date Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:17:28 GMT
Hi,

Yep, not all languages are created equal. But that's what I meant when I said 
that adding another language would be a matter of writing some templates and 
a generator. But, the important thing is that once a minimal generator is 
written, in theory, contributors would only need to write a new templates. 
For example, supporting Twisted in the Python generator is actually a matter 
of returning Deferreds in client calls, but it still required changes in the 
generator. 

Cheers.

On Friday 06 March 2009 20:28:47 Mark Slee wrote:
> I'd just point out that there are more differences between the language
> generators than it seems on the surface. We tried to have much more code
> reuse across the language generators than we ended up with, especially for
> C++/Java etc. which seem highly similar, but it turned out in practice to
> get really awkward really fast, so we erred on the side of more standalone
> language generators that are easier to understand in isolation.
>
> I still think templates with more shared code for different generators is a
> good avenue to explore, but just want to raise a caution flag that it's
> been tried, and is reasonably difficult.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Esteve Fernandez [mailto:esteve@sindominio.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 3:04 AM
> To: thrift-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Some thoughts about changes to Thrift
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers.



Mime
View raw message