I was thinking the same. Without being all for changing the name,
maybe:groovy-single.jargroovy-fat.jargroovy-the-one.jar(or more fluent:
the-one-groovy.jar ;-) )?
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Datum: 23.11.17 02:43 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@groovy.apache.org Betreff: Re:
Building Groovy
The issue we sometimes get with names like "standalone" (and even "all") is
that sometimes folks assume that means with all optional dependencies embedded
like ivy, commons-cli, junit etc. I am not saying that "standalone" is any
worse than "all", just a point to keep in mind when picking names ...
Cheers, Paul.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:53 AM, MG <mg...@arscreat.com> wrote:
I like groovy-standalone.jar as a name (clearer than "all").
Alas changing names breaks all internet guides/posts/etc preceeding
the name change, so one has to be careful with things like this...
On 22.11.2017 23:33, Leonard Brünings
wrote:
If you are doing that then most likely you won't be using the
module path either, so we could have groovy-standalone.jar,
with a Automatic-Module-Name of
"dont.use.this.jar.for.module.path" to make it really obvious on
what the proper usage is.
Am 22.11.2017 um 21:58 schrieb Paul
King:
The advantage with the fat jar is the convenience
of being able to run Groovy without a dependency management
system (Gradle/Maven). Java -jar with just the groovy-all jar
is going to get you a long way. Then again, I bet most people
who aren't using Gradle/Maven probably just download the
distribution. So I see the groovy-all jar as a nice to have
but not necessarily essential.
Cheers, Paul.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:22 AM,
Leonard Brünings <groovy-...@bruenings-it.net>
wrote:
I agree
with Cédric, that is also what I suggested before.
With maven/gradle the usage of groovy-all is currently
done out of convenience.
I think most projects would work just as well, if
groovy-all would be turned into an
empty jar that just depends on the other jars.
Am 22.11.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Jochen Theodorou:
Of course you arr right, I am more worried about the
migration path in combination with the final result.
On 22.11.2017 14:30, Cédric Champeau wrote:
Said differently, if you depend on `groovy-all`,
it will _effectively_ bring groovy, groovy-json,
groovy-xml, groovy-...
All of those can be proper modules (as long as we
fix the split packages). Then if someone else only
brings in `groovy` + `groovy-json`, there's no
conflict.
2017-11-22 14:29 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau
<cedric.champ...@gmail.com
<mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com>>:
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
<mailto: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
