Can you provide more information on how this is achieved? As far as I know there is no official, supported, portable API for Java compilers. The only thing I'm aware of is APT and anything beyond that would require significant rearchitecture of the existing compilers.
See https://github.com/google/error-prone/blob/master/core/src/m... for the entry-point.
I'm very close to getting out of my depth here though :)
I also don't see how it is "very much akin to APT". APT is an API where the A stands for abstract and the I stands for interface. APT therefore is portable across compilers and supported. error-prone seems to be tied to the current implementation of javac.
It is as if words don't have a meaning anymore, all that matters is how you feel.
I am very reluctant to use such a tool because to me it looks likely that it's going to have similar problems to tools by Google relying on the implementation internal APIs in the past (eg. Android or GAE/J). Supporting new versions of Java is going to require serious amounts of effort and therefore going to be very late if it happens at all.
It does require a lot of effort to keep up with OpenJDK updates, but that's my team's job, and we have to do the work anyway to keep Error Prone running inside Google. We tie Error Prone to a specific version of javac, which matches the one we are currently using inside Google (https://github.com/google/error-prone-javac), so we don't have to support multiple different internal APIs. We are currently using a version of javac 9 from about a year ago, and we're planning a bump to something close to head maybe in Q1.
Eclipse integration would be a pain but would look a lot like what the Checker Framework does.
Error-prone is a compiler plugin _mechanism_ - once you have an error-prone compiler, the checks are arguments to the compiler just like APT annotation processors are.
It's built on a standard API - the JavaCompiler mechanism built into the Java SDK - but yes, the code does have further dependencies on com.sun packages. This is a little confusing because why expose the compiler for invocation and extension when extensions have to rely on unsupported code?
So, yes, there are ways where the distinction is important, but they're orthogonal to the point I was trying to make.
