Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[dsdp-pmc] RE: antlr CQ

Hi Dave,
after a little thought, I think you should apply for ANTLR runtime only.
I find it quite natural that non-EPL tools are required for building some software: just think about compilers for the DLL's / sharedlibs (MS devstudio, gcc, make), CM tools (subversion), build tools (ant). It's not unexpected IMO that the build instructions for RTSC include instructions where to get and how to install the full ANTLR from some 3rd party source. Since you're not going to ship the ANTLR tools, nobody will care whether they are under EPL or not.
At the same time, you should probably think about committing the ANTRL-compiled grammars into CVS/SVN -- basically the counterpart of committing precompiled DLL's / sharedlibs into CVS like the Platform team does.
Does that help?
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

From: Russo, David [mailto:d-russo@xxxxxx]
Sent: Montag, 04. Mai 2009 23:03
To: Oberhuber, Martin
Subject: RE: antlr CQ

I believe it only covers the ANTLR runtime not the tool itself:



From: Oberhuber, Martin [mailto:Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:59 PM
To: Russo, David
Subject: RE: antlr CQ


Did you check ipzilla whether any version of antlr has been approved already?

I seem to remember that older versions were deemed not to be EPL compatible whereas a newer one (antlr 3.1 ??) was approved.




Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River

Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member




From: Russo, David [mailto:d-russo@xxxxxx]
Sent: Montag, 04. Mai 2009 22:55
To: Oberhuber, Martin
Cc: Russo, David
Subject: antlr CQ



I have a "judgment call" question I'd like your opinion on. 



As you probably know, the RTSC IDL is implemented using and ANTLR grammar.  In addition, in order to ensure RTSC build tooling is regularly tested with "real use", we use RTSC to re-build the RTSC tools.  For the RTSC team there is little difference between

·   what is required to build RTSC and

·   what is required to use RTSC (except for the target C compilers of course).


During the IP review of the XDCtools, we have a pre-requisite dependency on ANTLR.  Other projects only require the ANTLR runtime; i.e., a subset of the ANTLR distribution sufficient to use an ANTLR generated grammar.  But, in order to re-build the RTSC project's tools from source, more than the runtime is required; the ANTLR tool itself must be used to "compile" the supplied grammar.  Since we currently use RTSC tools to build RTSC's tools we currently distribute more than just the runtime - we distribute an unmodified antlr.jar that contains both the runtime and the ANTLR tool.  However, like other projects, to _use_ RTSC tools only the runtime is required.



Should I request an IP review of the _entire_ ANTLR package (tool and runtime) so that RTSC can re-build RTCS without additional installation steps ("get the full antlr jar with the right version and copy … then modify …."),



Re-building RTSC is obviously low on most peoples list of priorities so if it's complicated it may not be a big deal.  Moreover, I don't want to "rock the boat" by insisting on something we can work around.  On the other hand, re-distributing the unmodified antlr.jar from ensures that the right version of the ANTLR tool is always available and no additional installation steps are required to rebuild the IDL (in case someone want's to quickly try a change/addition to the Grammar).


From an ease of use point of view, I'd much prefer to distribute the complete ANTLR.  From an eclipse community member point of view, I don't want to unnecessarily burden others with work just for my convenience.  Any comments or perspectives would be appreciated.






Back to the top