+1 with the following comments: * No minus in module names as previously noted. * WRT no fat jar, I think you could argue Groovy is both a library and an application, so I think there is still a case for wanting to provide special support for non-Gradle and non-Maven users of Groovy. Having said that, I think our zip (and other) distributions go a long way to supporting such users and we can explore further support such as some kind of fat jar later and in ways that don't compromise more typical usage. * Just as a side note, we should also explore options like what I believe Kotlin provides of providing package translation during compilation. This won't stop the need for some breaking package names but might mean just a recompile will be enough in some cases to migrate to a new version of Groovy. We could have a compiler switch which turned on the translations and added in some extra automatic imports.
Cheers, Paul. On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:31 PM, 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, > >
