groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff MAURY <jeffma...@jeffmaury.com>
Subject Re: challenges through Java modules (aka jigsaw)
Date Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:58:56 GMT
+1 for Jesper proposition with the modification that 2 being groovy-all.jar
with binary compatibility but also a Jigsaw module.
So we could have:
Groovy 3.x: several Jigsaw module refactored
Groovy 2.x: same packaging with groovy-all being a stand alone Jigsaw
module.

Jeff

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Jesper Steen Møller <jesper@selskabet.org>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> -Jesper
>
> > On 26. nov. 2015, at 21.29, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org> 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 impact.
> >
> > 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 had https://docs.python.org/2/library/2to3.html
> >
> > bye blackdrag
>
>


-- 
Jeff MAURY


"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
working and scaling.
 - Bjarne Stroustrup

http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury

Mime
View raw message