groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Subject Re: Building Groovy
Date Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:43:25 GMT
The issue we sometimes get with names like "standalone" (and even "all") is
that sometimes folks assume that means with all optional dependencies
embedded like ivy, commons-cli, junit etc. I am not saying that
"standalone" is any worse than "all", just a point to keep in mind when
picking names ...

Cheers, Paul.


On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:53 AM, MG <mgbiz@arscreat.com> wrote:

> I like groovy-standalone.jar as a name (clearer than "all").
> Alas changing names breaks all internet guides/posts/etc preceeding the
> name change, so one has to be careful with things like this...
>
>
> On 22.11.2017 23:33, Leonard Brünings wrote:
>
> If you are doing that then most likely you won't be using the module path
> either, so we could have groovy-standalone.jar,
> with a Automatic-Module-Name of "dont.use.this.jar.for.module.path" to
> make it really obvious on what the proper usage is.
>
> Am 22.11.2017 um 21:58 schrieb Paul King:
>
> The advantage with the fat jar is the convenience of being able to run
> Groovy without a dependency management system (Gradle/Maven). Java -jar
> with just the groovy-all jar is going to get you a long way. Then again, I
> bet most people who aren't using Gradle/Maven probably just download the
> distribution. So I see the groovy-all jar as a nice to have but not
> necessarily essential.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Leonard Brünings <
> groovy-dev@bruenings-it.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Cédric, that is also what I suggested before.
>>
>> With maven/gradle the usage of groovy-all is currently done out of
>> convenience.
>>
>> I think most projects would work just as well, if groovy-all would be
>> turned into an
>> empty jar that just depends on the other jars.
>>
>>
>> Am 22.11.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Jochen Theodorou:
>>
>>> Of course you arr right, I am more worried about the migration path in
>>> combination with the final result.
>>>
>>> On 22.11.2017 14:30, Cédric Champeau wrote:
>>>
>>>> Said differently, if you depend on `groovy-all`, it will _effectively_
>>>> bring groovy, groovy-json, groovy-xml, groovy-...
>>>>
>>>> All of those can be proper modules (as long as we fix the split
>>>> packages). Then if someone else only brings in `groovy` + `groovy-json`,
>>>> there's no conflict.
>>>>
>>>> 2017-11-22 14:29 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau <cedric.champeau@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:cedric.champeau@gmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>     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
>>>>     <mailto: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