Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [javax_compiler] Re: Welcome to the discussion group for JSR199 (standard API for Java compilers)

Expand Messages
  • Olivier Lefevre
    ... That would be nice. If there is no document outlining its design philosophy, that is not very conducive to taking it into account when researching existing
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 7 2:04 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      > I was only mentionning alternate APIs for the long term story when we
      > want to address this JSR. There is no existing documentation reflecting
      > the Eclipse compiler API as of today, but something could be done on
      > this front.

      That would be nice. If there is no document outlining its design
      philosophy, that is not very conducive to taking it into account
      when researching existing APIs...

      > FYI, I am not interested in invoking com.sun.tools.javac.Main.compile

      Why not? The command-line arguments to compile are an API of sorts
      already. Assuming it were brought out in the open, so to speak, a priori
      I would have thought that it provides the kind of functionality required
      by IDE and Ant people. So, what do you dislike about it and what do you
      want from the new API?

      Regards,

      -- O.L.
    • Neal Gafter
      ... That is exactly right: the proposed simple tool API is little more than an abstraction of the entry point to the compiler. The little more is that you
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 17 3:40 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Philippe P Mulet wrote:
        > AFAIK *.javac.Main is only the front end to Sun javac. The proposed simple
        > tool API is a simple abstraction of it, I don't see much more into it. FYI,
        > Eclipse JDT implements its own Java compiler which provide core technology
        > for other compilation aware tools (like codeassist, search, etc...).

        That is exactly right: the proposed simple tool API is little more than an
        abstraction of the entry point to the compiler. The "little more" is that
        you don't have to worry about tools.jar when compiling your application or
        when running it. Perhaps Eclipse's compiler APIs are more in line with
        what we intend for JSR199.

        > The simple tool approach however doesn't surface dependency information,
        > which is quite essential to buld an incremental compiler on top of it.

        Also correct. However, I haven't yet seen a clear specification for
        "dependency" that would be applicable to the API.

        > Talking about the Eclipse compiler API, it is fairly stable, and has been
        > in use for several years already. Its javadoc are fairly detailed, though
        > we should definitely invest more time for producing a design document. BTW,
        > where is the matching documentation for the primary candidate API ?

        I don't think we have a primary candidate yet. If what I found at

        http://www.eclipse.org/documentation/html/plugins/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv/doc/reference/api/org/eclipse/jdt/core/package-summary.html

        is the documentation you're talking about, I wouldn't call a single
        sentence for the documentaiton of the main package "fairly detailed."
        For the class ICompilationUnit (it seemed like a reasonable place to
        start) I found two sentences. Is there some other more detailed
        documentation?

        -Neal
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.