groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Laforge <>
Subject Re: [VOTE]Support package scope via `package` keyword
Date Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:41:39 GMT
I'm feeling like being in between -1 and 0.
For the very rare cases where it's used, I (personally) don't care to have
to use an annotation, even if that might seem a bit awkward or cumbersome
(but we use annotations in plenty other contexts anyway because of AST
I don't see much value adding this 'package' notation, apart from adding a
bit more confusion for Java developers coming to Groovy and wondering what
the package keyword does in that place.


On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Paul King <> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Nathan Harvey <>
> wrote:
>> [...] My original point remains that using an
>> annotation to declare scope is awkward and cumbersome.
> The thinking behind that at the time was that it is comparatively rare to
> use package private
> scope so let's not care if it's a little bit awkward and cumbersome if it
> makes the much more
> common case (public) much more concise. If we think the assumptions have
> changed around
> package private usage since then, it is possibly worth looking at again
> but it isn't something
> that I've noticed. The trend I was noticing some time back was that
> inheritance (protected)
> and package private (predominantly for ease of testing) were becoming less
> common with
> dependency injection and various agile practices reducing usage but
> perhaps things have
> swung the other away recently and I haven't noticed.
> Anyway, I'm happy to vote +1 on something that I see as not having a
> downside but for
> something that seems just like a sideways move with different but it's own
> pros/cons then
> I am less enthusiastic.
> Cheers, Paul.

Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President
Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform

Social: @glaforge <> / Google+

View raw message