groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Automatic module names
Date Mon, 04 Dec 2017 09:24:25 GMT
right, it has to be a valid java identifier.

Am 03.12.2017 um 11:39 schrieb Remi Forax:
> Cedric,
> you can not have a dash in the name if you want the module name be 
> referenced in a module-info.java <http://module-info.java>.
> 
> so it should be org.apache.groovy.json
> 
> cheers,
> Rémi
> 
> 
> On December 3, 2017 10:31:27 AM GMT+01:00, "Cédric Champeau" 
> <cedric.champeau@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>     Hi fellow Groovy devs,
> 
>     We had 2 different conversations in the past weeks regarding
>     automatic module names for Groovy. We also starting receiving
>     notifications that some 3rd party projects are blocked by Groovy
>     when upgrading to modules (which is no surprise). Logback for one.
> 
>     We need to move forward, and take small steps forward. So, here's
>     the plan:
> 
>     1a. Replace the groovy-all jar with a groovy-all POM with just
>     dependencies, so that those depending on groovy-all.jar would now
>     get groovy.jar, groovy-json.jar and friends, instead of the all jar.
>     1b. Add automatic module names for all jars we have. Since we know
>     breaking changes are coming, I'd suggest using
>     "org.codehaus.groovy", "org.codehaus.groovy-json", ...
>     2. Fix split packages
>     3. When this is fixed, change module names to "org.apache.groovy",
>     "org.apache.groovy-json", ...
> 
>     I would do 1a and 1b as soon as possible (2.5).
>     I would do 2 and 3 for 3.0, since those are binary breaking changes.
>     This is also why I would leverage that to move to org.apache module
>     names.
> 
>     I am against providing another -all jar, which would be confusing.
>     Also we have to get rid, as a larger community (java), of the bad
>     habit of using fat jars as dependencies. Those should only be used
>     in final applications, not libraries, so should be transparent to
>     consumers.
> 
>     Please vote, so that we can move forward.
> 
>     [ ] +1 The plan sounds good
>     [ ] 0 I don't understand enough of the context to have an opinion
>     [ ] -1 because...
> 
>     Thanks a lot,
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Mime
View raw message