|
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?
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project
Lead, DSDP PMC Member
I believe it only
covers the ANTLR runtime not the tool itself: https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3270.
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.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of
Technical Staff, Wind
River
Target Management
Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From:
Russo, David [mailto:d-russo@xxxxxx]
Sent: Montag, 04. Mai 2009
22:55
To: Oberhuber,
Martin
Cc: Russo,
David
Subject: antlr
CQ
Martin,
I have a "judgment call"
question I'd like your opinion on.
Background
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.
Question
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 …."),
Considerations
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 antlr.org 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.
Thanks
dave
|
