Am 22.11.2017 um 10:09 schrieb Cédric Champeau:
To me it's very clear that Groovy.next is indy only, so all the discussions we have about module names or call site caching are solved.
for the transition time from Groovy not as module and Groovy as module we require a discussion. Not about the indy versions, but about the fatjar. Unless my arguments before are good enough and we use different names for the fatjar and the proper module jars.
Btw, In my eyes there is zero advantage for Groovy as module. The step is only required to not be at disadvantage, or even being ruled out as possibility. Of course the bigger required breaking changes may have the same effect
bye Jochen
