Re: Maven coordinates going forward

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I was mostly interested in feedback on the maven coordinates rather than package names, but it was good to get views on both. We have already started creating new classes using the org.apache package prefix rather than org.codehaus and I presume that we can

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

> > Is this not the whole point of releasing versioned binaries? It just >> means a couple of extra steps when I upgrade. First, change the >> coordinates (group + version instead of just the version) and a quick >> refactor of my imports. Every modern IDE makes this easy. >> >> >> This is not

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

On 30.03.2017 20:58, Miro Bezjak wrote: [...] So if we are talking about JDK9 modules them I'm with Jason and the rest of you. Sure, breaking backwards compatibility is a sensible thing to do in that case. and I wish I would know how to solve all the problems. Right now it seems like Groovy

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

> > > > > Is this not the whole point of releasing versioned binaries? It just > means a couple of extra steps when I upgrade. First, change the > coordinates (group + version instead of just the version) and a quick > refactor of my imports. Every modern IDE makes this easy. > > > This is not

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

That's a good point. It could cause some issues for Groovy as a transitive dependency, but doing a global exclude in Maven is fairly easy to do. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Cédric Champeau wrote: > One thing one has to consider when changing Maven coordinates,

RE: Maven coordinates going forward

te all functionality from scratch is never a valid scenario for 10+ year old projects. Jason *From:* Guillaume Laforge [mailto:glafo...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:21 AM *To:* users@groovy.apache.org *Subject:* Re: Maven coordinates going forward And there's also groovy-wsli

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

ge- >> From: Russel Winder [mailto:rus...@winder.org.uk] >> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:54 AM >> To: users@groovy.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Maven coordinates going forward >> >> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:26 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote: >> > We have to

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

ers@groovy.apache.org > Subject: Re: Maven coordinates going forward > > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:26 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote: > > We have to keep in mind that there's a larger story here, which is > > supporting Groovy as a module. And this *will* require package changes &

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

vy 3 and re-release. >> >> Jason >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Russel Winder [mailto:rus...@winder.org.uk] >> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:54 AM >> To: users@groovy.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Maven coordinates going forward >> >

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

nder.org.uk] > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:54 AM > To: users@groovy.apache.org > Subject: Re: Maven coordinates going forward > > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:26 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote: > > We have to keep in mind that there's a larger story here, which is > > support

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:26 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote: > We have to keep in mind that there's a larger story here, which is > supporting Groovy as a module. And this *will* require package > changes and > binary breaking changes. So I don't think the status quo is > acceptable in > the long

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 15:42 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote: > Given Cédric's email and recent comments I think I have been > convinced to change my vote to a -1 for changing Maven coordinates or > package names. > > Is there a compelling technical argument for either change?  Going by > the old

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

Given Cédric's email and recent comments I think I have been convinced to change my vote to a -1 for changing Maven coordinates or package names. Is there a compelling technical argument for either change? Going by the old adage, "if it ain't broke don't fix it", what exactly is being "fixed"?

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

The transitive dependency problem is also challenge for non-open source, internally developed enterprise applications as well. I'm having a hard time seeing how this "should be fairly low impact." I agree with: "I would do this for the "breaking" version of Groovy, whatever it is, but not

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

-1 for both maven coordinates and package change. Please don't break backwards compatibility. Maybe I'm missing something but I see no good reason for either change. As others have mentioned, there is a lot of unmaintained code that would stop working as a result of a package change. So in my

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

I'm +1 on Maven coordinate change. That should be fairly low impact. I agree package renames should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Offhand, the two biggest things that come to mind are custom ASTs, and the compilation bits. For the former, I'd think it shouldn't be any worse than the

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

ed on matching the package name to the >>>> group ID, that’s not a common operation and modern IDEs (and >>>> search.maven.org) can easily answer the question if needed. The only >>>> drawback to changing Maven coordinates is it might make it harder for >>>

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

nt versions of current dependencies. However, with a >>> project as big as Groovy I think it will be clear when Groovy 3 comes out >>> that users will know. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Keith S

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

think it will be clear when Groovy 3 comes out that users will know. >> >> >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> *From:* Keith Suderman [mailto:suder...@anc.org] >> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 2:49 PM >> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org >>

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

On 27 March 2017 at 19:49, Keith Suderman wrote: > +1 for changing Maven coordinates. > > -1 for changing package names. Sure, new code can use the new package > names, but changing existing packages is just breaking changes for the sake > of breaking things with no real

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

*From:* Keith Suderman [mailto:suder...@anc.org] > *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 2:49 PM > *To:* users@groovy.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: Maven coordinates going forward > > > > +1 for changing Maven coordinates. > > > > -1 for changing package names. Sure, new cod

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

On 27.03.2017 20:08, Winnebeck, Jason wrote: The key thing in my mind is that you can't make a change that breaks 100% of libraries at one time without fracturing the community or at least introducing a major hindrance to upgrade that will mean maintaining 2.x series for a very long time. Even

RE: Maven coordinates going forward

: Monday, March 27, 2017 1:29 PM To: users@groovy.apache.org Subject: Re: Maven coordinates going forward On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 12:47 -0400, Gerald Wiltse wrote: > […] > Specifically, reaching out to the Python maintainers for guidance.  In > hindsight, someone deeply involved usually has a v

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 12:47 -0400, Gerald Wiltse wrote: > […] > Specifically, reaching out to the Python maintainers for > guidance.  In > hindsight, someone deeply involved usually has a very clear vision of > "What > we should have done instead was...".  It would be a major missed > opportunity

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

Daniel Sun <realblue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The two are independent. I suggest changing both at the same time would > be the right thing to do. > > Agreed! > > > Cheers, > Daniel.Sun > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://g

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

> The two are independent. I suggest changing both at the same time would be the right thing to do. Agreed! Cheers, Daniel.Sun -- View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Maven-coordinates-going-forward-tp5739395p5739409.html Sent from the Groovy Users mailing l

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

On 27/03/2017 16:58, David Clark wrote: Will this also change the package names to org.apache.groovy or will those remain org.codehaus.groovy? I think that would be a good idea. -- Schalk W. Cronjé Twitter / Ello / Toeter : @ysb33r

RE: Maven coordinates going forward

To: users@groovy.apache.org Subject: Re: Maven coordinates going forward On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 09:58 -0500, David Clark wrote: > Will this also change the package names to org.apache.groovy or will > those remain org.codehaus.groovy? > The two are independent. I suggest changing both at

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 09:58 -0500, David Clark wrote: > Will this also change the package names to org.apache.groovy or will > those > remain org.codehaus.groovy? > The two are independent. I suggest changing both at the same time would be the right thing to do. -- Russel.

Re: Maven coordinates going forward

Will this also change the package names to org.apache.groovy or will those remain org.codehaus.groovy? On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Paul King wrote: > Hi, it's still a little while away but we'll soon begin the work on > what will be called Groovy 3 or Groovy 4 - the

Maven coordinates going forward

Hi, it's still a little while away but we'll soon begin the work on what will be called Groovy 3 or Groovy 4 - the exact version number is potentially up for further debate depending on how other upcoming Parrot back port work pans out but we are not asking for feedback on that right now. This