+1 with the amendment from Rémi
Am 03.12.2017 um 11:39 schrieb Remi Forax: > Cedric, > you can not have a dash in the name if you want the module name be > referenced in a module-info.java <http://module-info.java>. > > so it should be org.apache.groovy.json > > cheers, > Rémi > > > On December 3, 2017 10:31:27 AM GMT+01:00, "Cédric Champeau" > <cedric.champ...@gmail.com> 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, > > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
