That's precisely what I'm saying: we don't need a fat jar. We need a _module_ (Maven/Gradle sense of a module), which brings in the jars of the individual modules (JPMS sense). So there's no such think as a fat jar anymore, we don't need it.
2017-11-22 14:26 GMT+01:00 Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>: > > > Am 22.11.2017 um 11:47 schrieb Cédric Champeau: > >> What is the advantage of providing a fat jar, if you can have a "virtual" >> dependency, groovy-all, which brings all the others in? There used to be a >> difference, but now it's not that clear. >> > > How are you going to express dependencies with automatic modules? They are > automatic, because they lack the information a proper module provides and > part of that information is the dependencies afaik. JPMS != maven. > > If you want groovy-all to bring in all the dependencies, then basically it > is an almost empty jar with dependencies and the dependencies are the real > modules. the fat-jar itself cannot provide any packages those dependencies > to provide, otherwise you have conflicts. The empty groovy-all-approach is > something we could go for in maven too of course. But its is not a fatjar > then ;) > > bye Jochen >
