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: [VOTE] Automatic module names
Date Sun, 03 Dec 2017 18:03:09 GMT
Right, the exact name of the module can be discussed. I have nothing
against org.apache.groovy.json.


2017-12-03 18:38 GMT+01:00 Leonard Brünings <groovy-dev@bruenings-it.net>:

> +1 with the amendment from Rémi
>
> 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.
>
> 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> <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