groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <>
Subject Re: About setting a stable module name with `Automatic-Module-Name` entry in MANIFEST
Date Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:58:24 GMT
On 21.11.2017 09:17, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> I agree with Leonard. It's a bit premature to use Automatic-Module-Name, 
> because we're simply not "modularization-ready". And I agree that the 
> first step should be to move away from `groovy-all.jar`, which is 
> possible now that groovy and groovy-all are both relocating packages the 
> same way, so the all version can become a pure dependency artifact.

Fatjars can´t export multiple modules, yes, but that is because they are 
one module only. So they are compatible, you just cannot replace the 
fatjar later with multiple jars and let them share names. But why not 
call the fatjar different then?

And because groovy.jar and groovy-all.jar cannot coexist in the module 
world, as cannot groovy-all.jar and the actual module jars (because of 
what they export), what would be the first step into the module world, 
when you are actually not ready yet? You make a fat jar.

So in my view it will either take a long time till we haven an even 
cleanly defined module (not talking about actually being able to use 
that module), or we go with groovy-all at the beginning.

But I do agree on the indy variant not having a different name... and 
actually it is not only the indy version of the groovy-all. There are 
indy versions of all the jars

bye Jochen

View raw message