"deprecated recursive use" warning

[Robert Goldman]

On 30 Jan 2018, at 15:53, Attila Lendvai wrote:

>> I haven't used CFFI in a while.
>
> TL;DR: is this a sane fix?
>
> https://github.com/cffi/cffi/commit/4b9b06f15912e823581b1aeb8a0d5c2ef11f702d
>
> ----------
> and here follows the elaborate email that led me to find the above
> solution:
>
> a bit of background: it's a subsystem of CFFI that generates the CFFI
> bindings from a json file, that is in turn autogenerated from the C
> source.
>
> so,
>
>  1) C -> json
>  2) json -> lisp (CFFI definitions)
>  3) asdf compiles/loads the generated lisp file
>
> 1) requires a heavyweight infrastructure (a binary run by
> run-program), so there's support to do that lazily, and just
> distribute the json files generated once by the lib author.
>
> 2) is relatively lightweight, but it still requires loading a broader
> scope of lisp dependencies, so there's support for the lib author to
> run the generation and distribute the generated lisp file.
>
> now, whether the generator code (extra dependencies) is needed is
> decided by whether or not the generated lisp file is up-to-date.
>
> unfortunately i cannot test it properly because of another bug/change
> that i'll report in a separate thread.

Thinking out loud:

I'll have a bit more of a look.  IIUC what you are saying is that there 
should be an OP that covers the C -> JSON translation, and that requires 
some infrastructure that you don't want to load unless it's necessary.

Then there's JSON -> lisp that has additional dependencies that are 
optional.

The problem I see is that, IIRC, ASDF creates a build plan that is 
*unconditional*, and then *executes* it conditionally, by calling 
`OPERATION-DONE-P`, and skipping unnecessary operations.  It does this 
because earlier steps in the process can change what `OPERATION-DONE-P` 
would return for later stages in plan execution.

The problem with this is that you want what comes *later* in the plan 
(whether or not the lisp derived from JSON) to affect what comes 
*earlier* in the plan (whether or not the JSON to lisp translation 
library gets loaded).

I think I know what is the Right Answer to this, but it might be so much 
more work that you would rather just keep your current hack working....

I think the Right Thing is to realize that what ASDF does is not so much 
transform files, as to maintain the consistency of the running lisp 
image.  Now, in no case does the running lisp image need *either* the 
JSON generation system *or* the JSON to lisp translation system.  All 
the *running lisp image* needs to function correctly is an up-to-date 
lisp file produced by this pipeline.  So....

The Right Thing is to kick that pipeline out of the current lisp 
process.  Instead of making ASDF use its `LOAD-OP`, etc. to do this 
translation for you, you should just create an external application 
(which might be a lisp program) to do the JSON generation (if needed) 
and the JSON to lisp translation (if needed).  That external program 
could well use ASDF to manage itself.  But all that would be in your 
*main* ASDF system definition would be a `JSON-GEN-OP` and a 
`JSON-TO-LISP-OP`, each of which would be implemented by invoking an 
external program.  As in, for example
```
(DEFMETHOD PERFORM ((OP JSON-GEN-OP) (c json-component))
    (uiop:run-program ....))
```

Once you think about what ASDF does and doesn't do, I think this makes 
perfect sense.  But, of course, it might be a big pain to do so.

Best,
R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20180130/0f4aa7a6/attachment.html>