7:42 p.m.
As most of you know already, we are planning to redesign the current
Antlr-based HQL/JPQL parser in ORM for a variety of reasons.
The current approach in the translator (Antlr 2 based, although Antlr 3
supports the same model) is that we actually define multiple
grammars/parsers which progressively re-write the tree adding more and more
semantic information; think of this as multiple passes or phases. The
current code has 3 phases:
1) parsing - we simply parse the HQL/JPQL query into an AST, although we do
do one interesting (and uber-important!) re-write here where we "hoist" the
from clause in front of all other clauses.
2) rough semantic analysis - the current code, to be honest, sucks here.
The end result of this phase is a tree that mixes normalized semantic
information with lots of SQL fragments. It is extremely fugly
3) rendering to SQL
The idea of phases is still the best way to attack this translation imo. I
just think we did not implement the phases very well before; we were just
learning Antlr at the time. So part of the redesign here is to leverage
our better understanding of Antlr and design some better trees. The other
big reason is to centralize the generation of SQL into one place rather
than the 3 different places we do it today (not to mention the many, many
places we render SQL fragments).
Part of the process here is to decide which parser to use. Antlr 2 is
ancient :) I used Antlr 3 in the initial prototyping of this redesign
because it was the most recent release at that time. In the interim Antlr
4 has been released.
I have been evaluating whether Antlr 4 is appropriate for our needs there.
Antlr 4 is a pretty big conceptual deviation from Antlr 2/3 in quite a few
ways. Generally speaking, Antlr 4 is geared more towards interpreting
rather than translating/transforming. It can handle "transformation" if
the transformation is the final step in the process. Transformations is
where tree re-writing comes in handy.
First lets step back and look at the "conceptual model" of Antlr 4. The
grammar is used to produce:
1) the parser - takes the input and builds a "parse tree" based on the
rules of the lexer and grammar.
2) listener/visitor for parse-tree traversal - can optionally generate
listeners or visitors (or both) for traversing the parse tree (output from
parser).
There are 2 highly-related changes that negatively impact us:
1) no tree grammars/parsers
2) no tree re-writing
Our existing translator is fundamentally built on the concepts of tree
parsers and tree re-writing. Even the initial prototypes for the redesign
(and the current state of hql-parser which Sanne and Gunnar picked up from
there) are built on those concepts. So moving to Antlr 4 in that regard
does represent a risk. How big of a risk, and whether that risk is worth
it, is what we need to determine.
What does all this mean in simple, practical terms? Let's look at a simple
query: "select c.headquarters.state.code from Company c". Simple syntactic
analysis will produce a tree something like:
[QUERY]
[SELECT]
[DOT]
[DOT]
[DOT]
[IDENT, "c"]
[IDENT, "headquarters"]
[IDENT, "state"]
[IDENT, "code"]
[FROM]
[SPACE]
[SPACE_ROOT]
[IDENT, "Customer"]
[IDENT, "c"]
There is not a lot of semantic (meaning) information here. A more semantic
representation of the query would look something like:
[QUERY]
[SELECT]
[ATTRIBUTE_REF]
[ALIAS_REF, "<gen:1>"]
[IDENT, "code"]
[FROM]
[SPACE]
[PERSISTER_REF]
[ENTITY_NAME, "com.acme.Customer"]
[ALIAS, "c"]
[JOIN]
[INNER]
[ATTRIBUTE_JOIN]
[IDENT, "headquarters"]
[ALIAS, "<gen:0>"]
[JOIN]
[INNER]
[ATTRIBUTE_JOIN]
[IDENT, "state"]
[ALIAS, "<gen:1>"]
Notice especially the difference in the tree rules. This is tree
re-writing, and is the major difference affecting us. Consider a specific
thing like the "c.headquarters.state.code" DOT-IDENT sequence. Essentially
Antlr 4 would make us deal with that as a DOT-IDENT sequence through all
the phases - even SQL generation. Quite fugly. The intent of Antlr 4 in
cases like this is to build up an external state table (external to the
tree itself) or what Antlr folks typically refer to as "iterative tree
decoration"[1]. So with Antlr 4, in generating the SQL, we would still be
handling calls in terms of "c.headquarters.state.code" in the SELECT clause
and resolving that through the external symbol tables. Again, with Antlr 4
we would always be walking that initial (non-semantic) tree. Unless I am
missing something. I would be happy to be corrected, if anyone knows Antlr
4 better. I have also asked as part of the antlr-discussion group[2].
In my opinion though, if it comes down to us needing to walk the tree in
that first form across all phases I just do not see the benefit to moving
to Antlr 4.
P.S. When I say SQL above I really just mean the target query language for
the back-end data store whether that be SQL targeting a RDBMS for ORM or a
NoSQL store for OGM.
[1] I still have not fully grokked this paradigm, so I may be missing
something, but... AFAICT even in this paradigm the listener/visitor rules
are defined in terms of the initial parse tree rules rather than more
[2] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/antlr-discussion/hzF_YrzfDKo