groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Building Groovy
Date Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:47:26 GMT
What is the advantage of providing a fat jar, if you can have a "virtual"
dependency, groovy-all, which brings all the others in? There used to be a
difference, but now it's not that clear.

2017-11-22 11:45 GMT+01:00 Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>:

>
>
> Am 22.11.2017 um 10:09 schrieb Cédric Champeau:
>
>> To me it's very clear that Groovy.next is indy only, so all the
>> discussions we have about module names or call site caching are solved.
>>
>
> for the transition time from Groovy not as module and Groovy as module we
> require a discussion. Not about the indy versions, but about the fatjar.
> Unless my arguments before are good enough and we use different names for
> the fatjar and the proper module jars.
>
> Btw, In my eyes there is zero advantage for Groovy as module. The step is
> only required to not be at disadvantage, or even being ruled out as
> possibility. Of course the bigger required breaking changes may have the
> same effect
>
> bye Jochen
>

Mime
View raw message