thrift-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Bennett" <da...@yorkage.com>
Subject Major feature suggestion/observation
Date Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:47:14 GMT
I'm a compiler guy (amongst other scars). I was somewhat surprised when I opened up the Thrift
compiler to discover that it uses industrial strength parsing (for a very slim language) and
a hand-rolled, ad hoc source code generator (for a serious backend problem). I had expected
the exact opposite.

After reading a few comments on this list I think a number of the shortcomings of Thrift result
from this. The compiler may be 'tweakable' but it sure ain't configurable. The precise content
of the generated code (and how to alter it) is an ever present problem.

My suggestion is that the backend of the compiler should be entirely rewritten using modern
code generation technology and a selection of 'skeletons' provided as separate text files.
Anyone who wanted to tweak the output for any of their special use cases could easily copy
and modify an individual skeleton without having to venture into the dark recesses of the
C++ compiler.

With luck, the initial batch of skeletons could be extracted directly from the existing compiler.
It's still a biggish job.

[Side digression: for some languages code generation is not really needed. The language has
sufficient abstraction capability to implement the IDL directly. Since there are other languages
that do not, we are stuck with code generation.]

The biggest choice is: which product to use for the code generation? I have a little familiarity
with T4 and the ANTLR StringTemplate, and I've hand-rolled a couple of my own but there are
heaps of others out there. Maybe it all comes down to what you're used to. I'm not sure I'm
quite ready for the investment of time.

Regards
David M Bennett FACS

Andl - A New Database Language - andl.org



Mime
View raw message