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 13:29:12 GMT
That's precisely what I'm saying: we don't need a fat jar. We need a
_module_ (Maven/Gradle sense of a module), which brings in the jars of the
individual modules (JPMS sense). So there's no such think as a fat jar
anymore, we don't need it.

2017-11-22 14:26 GMT+01:00 Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>:

>
>
> Am 22.11.2017 um 11:47 schrieb Cédric Champeau:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> How are you going to express dependencies with automatic modules? They are
> automatic, because they lack the information a proper module provides and
> part of that information is the dependencies afaik. JPMS != maven.
>
> If you want groovy-all to bring in all the dependencies, then basically it
> is an almost empty jar with dependencies and the dependencies are the real
> modules. the fat-jar itself cannot provide any packages those dependencies
> to provide, otherwise you have conflicts. The empty groovy-all-approach is
> something we could go for in maven too of course. But its is not a fatjar
> then ;)
>
> bye Jochen
>

Mime
View raw message