Re: What is the best replacement for running scripts using groovy-all?

2018-12-19 Thread James Kleeh
Paul, The best solution is to use Maven or Gradle to create an all-in-one (fat) jar that you can ship and run with java -jar Gradle has a shadow plugin and Maven has a shade plugin to do just that. James > On Dec 19, 2018, at 4:19 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 20:18,

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

2018-06-13 Thread James Kleeh
I strongly advocate for option 2. I think the biggest threat to the future of Groovy is JDK9 support. > On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Paul King wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of Groovy > 3.0. Some of that discussion was

Re: Java 8 Date/Time API Extension Methods

2017-06-08 Thread James Kleeh
Grails supports the java 8 date classes with a grails-java8 plugin http://plugins.grails.org/plugin/grails/grails-java8 > On Jun 8, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Tankerbay wrote: > > Is there still a legacy issue in that many

Re: Optimising a Groovy script

2017-03-28 Thread James Kleeh
This version runs around 0.10 @Grapes( @Grab(group='org.apache.commons', module='commons-math3', version='3.6.1') ) import org.apache.commons.math3.random.MersenneTwister @groovy.transform.CompileStatic class Benchmark { int benchmark(Closure closure) { def start =

Re: [VOTE]About the "implies" operator(=>) for Groovy 3

2017-01-27 Thread James Kleeh
-1 from me as well. Too confusing > On Jan 27, 2017, at 3:32 PM, Guillaume Laforge wrote: > > You're not afraid of potential asciiart abuse? > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Krzysztof Kowalczyk > >

Re: .with() variant that returns the original object

2016-11-08 Thread James Kleeh
I vote for withThis for similar reasons as Keith > On Nov 8, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Suderman Keith wrote: > > +1 for withThis > > withThis{} indicates it is just another form of the .with{} method that > returns this, that seems the most logical and consistent name. The name >

Re: 2.5 JsonBuilder Converters thoughts

2016-11-05 Thread James Kleeh
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:23 AM, James Kleeh <james.kl...@gmail.com > <mailto:james.kl...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Do we have any consensus on this? Should I submit a PR with the change? > > > On Oct 28, 2016, at 6:51 AM, Graeme Rocher <graeme.roc...@gmail.com > >

Re: 2.5 JsonBuilder Converters thoughts

2016-11-04 Thread James Kleeh
gt;> Yeah I agree JsonOutput.unescaped allows the same flexibility without >> compromising the most common use case. >> >> Cheers >> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:32 PM, John Wagenleitner >> <john.wagenleit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> O

2.5 JsonBuilder Converters thoughts

2016-10-25 Thread James Kleeh
her processed by that method would vastly outnumber the ones that do not. I think something like this would be a better solution: Converter converter = findConverter(objectClass); if (converter != null) { object = converter.convert(object, key); } Thoughts? Thanks, James Kleeh