groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Russel Winder <>
Subject Re: Licence statements
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:45:23 GMT
On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 15:07 +1000, Paul King wrote:
> Apologies for not answering earlier. I was travelling.

No problem, travel has a higher priority. :-)

> We bundle GPars and its transitive dependencies (including the jsr166y.jar)
> in our install for Groovy. As per normal Apache guidelines we make the
> licensing of anything we use/include crystal clear.

OK, understood. 

The question is then whether jsr166y.jar should be distributed at all. As far
as I remember jsr166y.jar is the bits of JDK 7 that are needed when running on
JDK 6. If the minimum JDK version for Groovy is JDK7 then I believe
jsr166y.jar is not needed.

extra166y.jar is needed for GPars 1.X,but we had to make a few amendments and
so took in internal fork into the GPars 1.X distribution. This means
extra166y.jar is definitely not a dependency. 

> I guess in the JDK9+ world we should consider whether we want to still
> include that dependency but perhaps we should put some further thinking
> into GPars 2 and can then decide.

I am assuming Groovy will treat JDK8 (despite it being a dead version of JDK
:-) ) as it's base for now, or is there an intention to go to JDK9 (even
though it is on it's last legs :-) )?

In any event jsr166y.jar is an irrelevance and can be removed as a dependency.

I guess if JDK9 is in play then GPars 2.0 ought to get packaged as a module.

The extra166y fork is removed from GPars 2 because it is assumed things are
running on at least JDK8.

Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w:

View raw message