Re: gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
Hum... well, the dependencies normally specify the extent of the AOT, in the sense that the AOT follows your code `require chain`. Which is why say :dev dependencies or test dependencies normally wouldn't be included in your AOT. That said, Clojure is required to AOT, and so it would be on the classpath and it will be an implicit require of any namespace, so it will get AOTed no matter what. I think that reasoning makes sense. Still, a Clojure library shouldn't include a dependency on Clojure in my opinion, as Clojure will always be provided by the container in those cases, unless it is meant to be consumed from Java. The best is to use the type of dependency that's like: use the parent specified one, unless there is none, then use this one. Can't quite remember all the different dm, but I believe lein, maven, etc. all have something like this. On Monday, 2 September 2019 06:56:50 UTC-7, atdixon wrote: > > I was responding to this: > > > I'm still torn on whether to actually add Clojure as a proper dependency > > The question to have Clojure as a proper dependency doesn't seem to change > whether you AOT or not. I take "proper dependency" to mean a Maven/Lein > dependency that ships with the dependency list in your library's POM. > > I agree that you that you shouldn't ship classes AOT'd outside of your > library/its namespaces. > > On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 10:31:46 PM UTC-5, Didier wrote: >> >> AOT does matter, because AOT is transitive. Effectively, all AOT builds >> are like Uberjars. They compile your code and the code of your dependencies >> and theirs as well into .class files putting everything in the build >> folder. Then the package will take all the classes and put them in the Jar. >> >> Any library that does that does it wrong. Don't AOT your libraries for >> that reason. Or make sure if you do, you are only including .class of your >> library code, not any of its dependencies. And even ideally, like I said, >> only include the bare minimum, so only .classes required for interop. The >> rest package as source. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/30ecd9df-79c6-4272-ba34-99de339dee88%40googlegroups.com.
Re: gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
I was responding to this: > I'm still torn on whether to actually add Clojure as a proper dependency The question to have Clojure as a proper dependency doesn't seem to change whether you AOT or not. I take "proper dependency" to mean a Maven/Lein dependency that ships with the dependency list in your library's POM. I agree that you that you shouldn't ship classes AOT'd outside of your library/its namespaces. On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 10:31:46 PM UTC-5, Didier wrote: > > AOT does matter, because AOT is transitive. Effectively, all AOT builds > are like Uberjars. They compile your code and the code of your dependencies > and theirs as well into .class files putting everything in the build > folder. Then the package will take all the classes and put them in the Jar. > > Any library that does that does it wrong. Don't AOT your libraries for > that reason. Or make sure if you do, you are only including .class of your > library code, not any of its dependencies. And even ideally, like I said, > only include the bare minimum, so only .classes required for interop. The > rest package as source. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/a0c62664-93a0-4504-af2b-8b7b73629e59%40googlegroups.com.
Re: gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
AOT does matter, because AOT is transitive. Effectively, all AOT builds are like Uberjars. They compile your code and the code of your dependencies and theirs as well into .class files putting everything in the build folder. Then the package will take all the classes and put them in the Jar. Any library that does that does it wrong. Don't AOT your libraries for that reason. Or make sure if you do, you are only including .class of your library code, not any of its dependencies. And even ideally, like I said, only include the bare minimum, so only .classes required for interop. The rest package as source. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/4516034c-7a15-4424-b0bb-fad483d59ea2%40googlegroups.com.
Re: gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
Hi, Dimitris -
It looks from Clojure source [1] that Clojure compiles to v1.8 class files,
so this should be mean you can run in any JVM 1.8 and beyond.
When you say you are deliberating including Clojure as a proper dependency.
I've noticed that some Clojure libraries will have Clojure listed as a
dependency in their repository POM but it will be marked with scope
`provided` which is a way of saying this is a dependency that the JAR is
expected to be provided by the library consumer at runtime.
I'm not sure why AOT changes the question of whether to include the Clojure
jar as a dependency; I think you have this question with
non-precompiled/AOT'd libraries, no? I do understand that with AOT your lib
will have *.class files in the JAR that directly reference Clojure classes.
But in some IDEs -- just having the dependency as provided will suffice to
make it available for linking/compiling.
[1]
https://github.com/clojure/clojure/commit/38705b49fd3dbae11e94c576ef49ff3eb1c47395
)
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 2:18:35 PM UTC-5, Jim foo.bar wrote:
>
> Ok, so after a bit of more thinking/reading, I realise now that my
> question was somewhat misplaced.
>
> Any AOT compiled code (not just gen-class), is an artifact of the compiler
> used to compile it, and therefore, in some sense, implicitly tied to that
> compiler version. However, that's not to say that the produced class
> definitely will or won't work with some other version. If my understanding
> is correct, it will work for future versions (which is the main point here)
> as long as Clojure itself maintains backwards compatibility (in this case
> wrt to gen-class).
>
> I'm still torn on whether to actually add Clojure as a proper dependency -
> I think I will probably end up doing so, but I'm not thrilled about it...
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dimitris
>
>
> On 23/08/2019 08:15, dimitris wrote:
>
> Why would I write the class in Java, when this below works exactly as
> expected?
>
> (ns foo
> (:gen-class :name foo.Bar
> :extends java.lang.System$LoggerFinder
> :constructors {[] []}))
>
> (let [slm (delay(-> 'foo/system-logger-memo
> requiring-resolve
> var-get))]
> (defn -getLogger
> "Returns a subclass of `System$Logger` which routes logging requests
> to the `core/*root*` logger."[this name module]
> ;; resolve it at runtime (and only once),;; in order to prevent AOT
> leaking out of this ns(@slm)))
>
>
> My question boils down to this:
>
> Let's say that I used clojure1.10 to compile the above gen-class. Does the
> project containing it need to specify Clojure 1.10 as a proper dependency,
> or will the end user be able to provide any version of Clojure greater or
> equal to 1.10?
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dimitris
>
>
> On 23/08/2019 02:00, Matching Socks wrote:
>
> You are considering gen-class as an alternative to writing the
> service-provider class in Java and using only methods in Clojure's public
> Java API to connect it with an implementation-in-Clojure?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clo...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to clo...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/0660b640-cf91-429b-9a40-1695e7955aef%40googlegroups.com
>
>
> .
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/d6430c24-6e97-4b13-ba21-e81a34f5020e%40googlegroups.com.
Re: gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
I'm not sure if it is harmful. On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 9:59:44 AM UTC-7, Jim foo.bar wrote: > > Hi folks, > > This is a genuine question that has tripped me quite a few times, so I'd > appreciate some closure - pun intended ;) > > Suppose you are developing a library *foo*. In the absence of AOT, you > don't need to include Clojure as an actual dependency (perhaps as a :dev > one so that you can work away), because the caller/user of your library is > expected to provide the Clojure version he/she wants (ignoring features > introduced in some particular release and such). All good so far... > > Now suppose said library uses a `:gen-class` ns (because it needs to > register a service through java-SPI and `proxy` won't cut it), and that you > 've managed to restrain AOT only to that specific ns (through runtime > `requiring-resolve` calls). Does that automatically make that library only > compatible with whatever Clojure version you compiled it with (which would > mean that Clojure now needs to be a proper dependency for things to work)? > > > Many thanks in advance... > > Kind regards, > > Dimitris > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/e63ff68c-cf60-457e-893d-fb05aa3e660d%40googlegroups.com.
Re: gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 5:39:18 AM UTC-4, Didier wrote: > > with only the -xyx fns in it. And have those instantly delegate to a call > to another namespace. > The gen-class :impl-ns option is useful here. It achieves the delegation without spreading AOT to the implementing namespace. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/c5da2374-ff83-4378-be6a-45f4354674f1%40googlegroups.com.
Re: gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
Clojure does not guarantee binary compatibility between versions, but almost always happens to be compatible. Yet, it's best not to distribute your Clojure libs as compiled classes, much better to do so as source. For a gen-class though, it works like Java. Java guarantees backward compatibility of classes, as far as I know. So you should be good as long as you make sure that none of the Clojure code gets AOTed and included in the jar by accident as you compiled the gen-class. Like keep your gen-class in their own namespace with only the -xyx fns in it. And have those instantly delegate to a call to another namespace. Or what I do is I AOT, but then when I package the Jar, I only include the gen-class .class file in it. I hand pick it for inclusion in the Jar, and don't include any of the other .class files. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/67955ff9-c70a-44e9-b9be-081056fc10c7%40googlegroups.com.
Re: gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
Ok, so after a bit of more thinking/reading, I realise now that my
question was somewhat misplaced.
Any AOT compiled code (not just gen-class), is an artifact of the
compiler used to compile it, and therefore, in some sense, implicitly
tied to that compiler version. However, that's not to say that the
produced class definitely will or won't work with some other version. If
my understanding is correct, it will work for future versions (which is
the main point here) as long as Clojure itself maintains backwards
compatibility (in this case wrt to gen-class).
I'm still torn on whether to actually add Clojure as a proper dependency
- I think I will probably end up doing so, but I'm not thrilled about it...
Kind regards,
Dimitris
On 23/08/2019 08:15, dimitris wrote:
Why would I write the class in Java, when this below works exactly as
expected?
(ns foo
(:gen-class :name foo.Bar
:extends java.lang.System$LoggerFinder
:constructors {[] []}))
(let [slm (delay (-> 'foo/system-logger-memo
requiring-resolve
var-get))]
(defn -getLogger
"Returns a subclass of `System$Logger` which routes logging requests
to the `core/*root*` logger." [this name module]
;; resolve it at runtime (and only once), ;; in order to prevent AOT
leaking out of this ns (@slm)))
My question boils down to this:
Let's say that I used clojure1.10 to compile the above gen-class. Does
the project containing it need to specify Clojure 1.10 as a proper
dependency, or will the end user be able to provide any version of
Clojure greater or equal to 1.10?
Thanks in advance...
Kind regards,
Dimitris
On 23/08/2019 02:00, Matching Socks wrote:
You are considering gen-class as an alternative to writing the
service-provider class in Java and using only methods in Clojure's
public Java API to connect it with an implementation-in-Clojure?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient
with your first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/0660b640-cf91-429b-9a40-1695e7955aef%40googlegroups.com
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/301cea19-425f-85cd-9eb7-ef8e81e58d2d%40gmail.com.
Re: gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
Why would I write the class in Java, when this below works exactly as
expected?
(ns foo
(:gen-class :name foo.Bar
:extends java.lang.System$LoggerFinder
:constructors {[] []}))
(let [slm (delay (-> 'foo/system-logger-memo
requiring-resolve
var-get))]
(defn -getLogger
"Returns a subclass of `System$Logger` which routes logging requests to
the `core/*root*` logger." [this name module]
;; resolve it at runtime (and only once), ;; in order to prevent AOT
leaking out of this ns (@slm)))
My question boils down to this:
Let's say that I used clojure1.10 to compile the above gen-class. Does
the project containing it need to specify Clojure 1.10 as a proper
dependency, or will the end user be able to provide any version of
Clojure greater or equal to 1.10?
Thanks in advance...
Kind regards,
Dimitris
On 23/08/2019 02:00, Matching Socks wrote:
You are considering gen-class as an alternative to writing the
service-provider class in Java and using only methods in Clojure's
public Java API to connect it with an implementation-in-Clojure?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient
with your first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/0660b640-cf91-429b-9a40-1695e7955aef%40googlegroups.com
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/705bcd0f-6c4f-a928-0859-e5b6e3c31126%40gmail.com.
Re: gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
You are considering gen-class as an alternative to writing the service-provider class in Java and using only methods in Clojure's public Java API to connect it with an implementation-in-Clojure? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/0660b640-cf91-429b-9a40-1695e7955aef%40googlegroups.com.
gen-class/AOT considered harmful (in libraries)???
Hi folks, This is a genuine question that has tripped me quite a few times, so I'd appreciate some closure - pun intended ;) Suppose you are developing a library /foo/. In the absence of AOT, you don't need to include Clojure as an actual dependency (perhaps as a :dev one so that you can work away), because the caller/user of your library is expected to provide the Clojure version he/she wants (ignoring features introduced in some particular release and such). All good so far... Now suppose said library uses a `:gen-class` ns (because it needs to register a service through java-SPI and `proxy` won't cut it), and that you 've managed to restrain AOT only to that specific ns (through runtime `requiring-resolve` calls). Does that automatically make that library only compatible with whatever Clojure version you compiled it with (which would mean that Clojure now needs to be a proper dependency for things to work)? Many thanks in advance... Kind regards, Dimitris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/1b298613-33a8-bc18-231e-2e6a8696b216%40gmail.com.
