+1 On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote:
> +1 > > > On 03.12.2017 10:31, Cédric Champeau wrote: > >> Hi fellow Groovy devs, >> >> We had 2 different conversations in the past weeks regarding automatic >> module names for Groovy. We also starting receiving notifications that some >> 3rd party projects are blocked by Groovy when upgrading to modules (which >> is no surprise). Logback for one. >> >> We need to move forward, and take small steps forward. So, here's the >> plan: >> >> 1a. Replace the groovy-all jar with a groovy-all POM with just >> dependencies, so that those depending on groovy-all.jar would now get >> groovy.jar, groovy-json.jar and friends, instead of the all jar. >> 1b. Add automatic module names for all jars we have. Since we know >> breaking changes are coming, I'd suggest using "org.codehaus.groovy", >> "org.codehaus.groovy-json", ... >> 2. Fix split packages >> 3. When this is fixed, change module names to "org.apache.groovy", >> "org.apache.groovy-json", ... >> >> I would do 1a and 1b as soon as possible (2.5). >> I would do 2 and 3 for 3.0, since those are binary breaking changes. This >> is also why I would leverage that to move to org.apache module names. >> >> I am against providing another -all jar, which would be confusing. Also >> we have to get rid, as a larger community (java), of the bad habit of using >> fat jars as dependencies. Those should only be used in final applications, >> not libraries, so should be transparent to consumers. >> >> Please vote, so that we can move forward. >> >> [ ] +1 The plan sounds good >> [ ] 0 I don't understand enough of the context to have an opinion >> [ ] -1 because... >> >> Thanks a lot, >> >> > -- Guillaume Laforge Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
