Checker Framework VS openapi-generator

It is interesting! I experimented with creating a bad borrow checker for Java using annotations from

https://checkerframework.org/

It supports some level of substructural types using must-call annotations,

https://checkerframework.org/manual/#resource-leak-checker

Lombok is not a compiler extension. Compiler extensions, aka annotation processors, are offered only specific capabilities that ensure that they preserve the Java language specification. Particularly, code that compiles successfully with an extension also compiles without it (perhaps requiring other classes to be available) and it compiles down to the same bytecode. Annotation processors are used to implement pluggable type systems (e.g. https://checkerframework.org) or to generate other classes (e.g. https://immutables.github.io/).

Unlike compiler extensions, Lombok compiles source files that do not conform to the Java language specification. Lombok is an alternative Java Platform language, like Clojure or Kotlin or Scala, except that it's a superset of the Java language. However, rather than forking `javac` source code and modifying it to compile Lombok source files, the Lombok compiler modifies `javac`'s operation by hacking into its internals and modifying them as it runs to compile Lombok sources rather than Java sources.

Having alternative Java Platform languages is perfectly fine. The problem with Lombok is that it doesn't present itself as such but as a library or a compiler extension even though it violates the Java language specification in ways that compiler extensions are forbidden from doing.

And then I found (thanks Oracle), https://checkerframework.org/ zomg, this thing is awesome. Pluggable Type Systems!

Java should adopt something like the Checker Framework Nullness Checker in its first-party tooling.

https://github.com/typetools/checker-framework

And modern (real, non-android) Java via project amber and so on has gone more and more quasi functional with its immutability and sealed and record types for effective sum types, as well as its pretty cool type-use annotation extensible static type checks.

Checkerframework - a really academic take, and as one might expect from such a thing, backed by tons of papers and analysed to perfection. Specifically, this is the only framework I'm aware of that realizes nullity is a little more complicated than just a boolean yes-or-no; just like generics actually have 4 flavours for any given type: List, List, List, and List are all 4 important and unique, and nullity is no different. Specifically, it can occur that you want to write a method that ought to accept both lists of nullable strings as well as list of nonnull strings, and needs to 'convey' this nullity again on its output. You can either attempt to lift along the existing generics system in java which I think is your intent, but it's not actually all that easy to do this. After all, T extends @Nullable Number super @NonNull Number, or whatnot, isn't legal java. So you.. really just can't do that. Checker Framework solves this problem by introducing the @PolyNull annotation, which still isn't perfect but covers almost all real world use cases you can think of. I'm missing any acknowledgement in your documentation. An oversight, or, something you hadn't thought of yet? You're in good company: Both eclipse and intellij's engineers, when I asked them about it, just hadn't realized it was a thing. Point is: If you think the primary problem with e.g. eclipse's and intellij's take is that they lack academic rigour - checkerframework has you beat.

NullAway or the Checker Framework should greatly help eliminate the issue. Also, when Java gets value types you should be able to define your own non nullable value types and use them safely.

There are a lot of existing libraries for type checking modules. For example the Checker Framework created by University of Washington. This framework includes a NonNull module, as well as regular expression module and a mutex lock module. See this for more information.

Disclaimer: We're an early adopter of Stainless at Mux.

I've spent more of my time than I'd like to admit managing both OpenAPi spec files [1] and fighting with openapi-generator [2] than any sane person should have to. While it's great having the freedom to change the templates an thus generated SDKs you get with using that sort of approach, it's also super time consuming, and when you have a lot of SDKs (we have 6 generated SDKs), in my experience it needs someone devoted to managing the process, staying up with template changes etc.

Excited to see more SDK languages come to Stainless!

[1] https://www.mux.com/blog/an-adventure-in-openapi-v3-api-code...

[2] https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator

As a result, the following specification can be used to generate clients in a number of different languages via OpenAPI Generator.

Of course you can compile the server from source if you have Go and the OpenAPI generator JAR (https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator?tab=readme...)

Follow these steps : https://github.com/c100k/rebootx-on-prem/blob/master/.github...

And then :

(cd ./impl/http-server-go && GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=openbsd go build -o /app/rebootx-on-prem-http-server-go-openbsd-amd64 -v)

By adapting the arch if needed. Not tested, but it should work.

TL;DR: Start generating your HTTP clients and all the DTOs of the requests and responses automatically from your API, using openapi-generator instead of writing your own.

As an alternative, you can also use the official OpenAPI Generator, which is a more generic tool supporting a wide range of languages and frameworks.

I trialed generating SDKs using the OpenAPI Generator package, which was largely unsatisfactory.

If Swagger/OpenAPI is available, save yourself a lot of trouble and generate the client using OpenAPI Generator. If not, use a library like RestEase to make it significantly easier to create the client.

For a run of the mill REST API you should generate OpenAPI (Swagger) info for the API using a library like NSwag or Swashbuckle. You'd want to do this no matter what because it's documentation for the API, but the bonus is that you can use it with tools like OpenAPI Generator to create API client code and models in a variety of languages. You certainly can create an API client library manually, it would entail having a nuget package with a class library that contains the models and client code for calling the endpoints (which I'd create using a lib such as RestEase unless you just enjoy writing boilerplate code by hand). However 95% of the time it simply isn't worth creating your own lib when OpenAPI is available because once you've done it a time or two it takes less than 5 min to run the generator and create (or update) a lib.

Then you can use oapi-codegen or openapi-generator to generate the Go (or other language) SDK for it.