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.
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.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Leonard Brünings <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:cedric.champeau@gmail.
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 <email@example.com
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