groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jesper Steen Møller <>
Subject Re: challenges through Java modules (aka jigsaw)
Date Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:45:41 GMT
Hi list

If it’s primarily a question of moving files in modules out into distinct package names,
how about doing the following:
1) Move to a Jigsaw-compatible module split going forward, thus breaking compatibility for
Jigsaw adopters, and
2) Provide a “compatibility” overlay jar containing all the classes with old package names
for non-jigsaw users?

That way, only people targetting Jigsaw-enabled runtimes will be hit by the source imcompatibility.


> On 26. nov. 2015, at 21.29, Jochen Theodorou <> wrote:
> On 26.11.2015 21:05, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>> I'm also thinking it's the right moment to "fix" things we've done
>> wrong, have a clean separation, not leaking implementation, etc.
>> That's feeling like the right moment to seize this opportunity. We
>> wouldn't keep the odd location of some of the classes we've already
>> mentioned. And as Cédric says, we could also offer a converter in a way
>> or another to help the migration.
>> People fear transitions like Python 2 to 3 would happen as soon as we
>> break compatibility, but the differences between Python 2 and 3 were
>> much bigger that what we're speaking about here.
> I think we need a list of the specific cases, then we can talk about the seize of the
> You two know I was all for a big change (MOP2). I am worried about the manpower to actually
do that change. I was back then already actually and did not want to do it all alone.
> If a source converter can be done the barrier sure is smaller. On the other hand Python
> bye blackdrag

View raw message