I've started to make this change.
Note that there is some impact when upgrading:
Script authors need to use
`@Grab('info.picocli:*picocli-groovy*:4.x')` from version 4.0, since
`@Grab('info.picocli:picocli:4.x')` will not work.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 1:28 AM MG wrote:
> Hi Remko,
>
> I agree option 1) is the cleanest, as well as it being the direction all
> of Groovy seems to be moving.
>
> Cheers,
> mg
>
>
> On 30/05/2019 14:50, Remko Popma wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I maintain the picocli library for creating command line applications in
> Groovy, Java, and other JVM languages.
> I have a question for the Groovy community (both users and developers):
>
> Currently, the picocli main jar contains both the core `picocli` package
> and a `picocli.groovy` package with classes that make it easy for Groovy
> scripts to use picocli annotations. I'm considering splitting up this jar.
>
> In an upcoming major release of the library I plan to provide a Java 9
> JPMS modular jar containing just the core `picocli` package and
> additionally a `module-info.class` to make this jar a full-fledged Java
> module.
>
> The question is what to do with the picocli.groovy package. I see two
> options:
> 1) have a `picocli-groovy` jar containing _only_ the picocli.groovy
> package - this jar would require (have a dependency on) the core picocli
> jar (the JPMS modular jar). Ideally this `picocli-groovy` jar would also be
> a JPMS module, but not sure if that's possible.
> 2) have a `picocli-legacy?` (name TBD) jar containing both the core
> picocli package and the picocli.groovy package - similar to the current
> picocli-3.9.x jar
>
> I believe the first option may be cleanest. Scripts would need to change
> their grape module from @Grab('info.picocli:picocli:$version') to
> @Grab('info.picocli:picocli-groovy:4.0.0') and that would bring in the
> transitive dependency on 'info.picocli:picocli:4.0.0', if my understanding
> is correct.
>
> Can anyone see any drawbacks with this approach?
> Would there be any point in additionally providing a `picocli-legacy`
> (name TBD) jar containing both the core picocli package and the
> picocli.groovy package, similar to the current picocli-3.9.x jar?
>
> On a side-note, has anyone had any issues with putting the
> `module-info.class` in the root of the modular jar versus putting it in
> META-INF/versions/9/ in the jar?
> Some people use
> META-INF/versions/9/ as a way to (hopefully) avoid issues with older tools
> unable to cope with the `module-info.class`. Does anyone have any
> experience with this?
>
> Remko
>
>
>
