From notifications-return-12983-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@groovy.apache.org Fri Jun 29 14:41:04 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B449180663 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:41:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 37331 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jun 2018 12:41:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact notifications-help@groovy.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@groovy.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list notifications@groovy.apache.org Received: (qmail 37282 invoked by uid 99); 29 Jun 2018 12:41:03 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:41:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id B3391C7FEF for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:41:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.5 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, KAM_SHORT=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VfWqk-04wzp9 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:41:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 6B11C5F4E4 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:41:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id D4AEEE0E87 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 49BD621844 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:41:00 +0000 (UTC) From: =?utf-8?Q?Josef_H=C3=A4rtl_=28JIRA=29?= To: notifications@groovy.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Comment Edited] (GROOVY-8666) groovy-all pom approach breaks OSGi due to split-packages MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8666?page=3Dcom.atlassia= n.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D165= 27467#comment-16527467 ]=20 Josef H=C3=A4rtl edited comment on GROOVY-8666 at 6/29/18 12:40 PM: --------------------------------------------------------------- Another finding: I analysed our project for further split-packages and foun= d that Eclipse RCP does in fact use split-packages successfully. It does so= by defining OSGi Fragments instead of full bundles. The technique is for e= xample described in here: [https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSRT= LW_8.5.5/com.ibm.osgi.common.doc/topics/cbundlefragment.html]=C2=A0and [htt= ps://osgi.org/specification/osgi.core/7.0.0/framework.module.html#framework= .module.fragmenthost]. This way the fragment (in our case groovy-xml) could= live inside the groovy bundle and add it's own classes. PS: Experiments with Eclipse RCP (our Client) und Equinox (our Server) in g= eneral suggest that including {code:java} Fragment-Host: groovy{code} into the MANIFEST.MF of the groovy-*.jar indeed solves the split-package-pr= oblems. Any OSGi experts around whether this would have any downsides? was (Author: josef h=C3=A4rtl): Another finding: I analysed our project for further split-packages and foun= d that Eclipse RCP does in fact use split-packages successfully. It does so= by defining OSGi Fragments instead of full bundles. The technique is for e= xample described in here: [https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSRT= LW_8.5.5/com.ibm.osgi.common.doc/topics/cbundlefragment.html]=C2=A0and [htt= ps://osgi.org/specification/osgi.core/7.0.0/framework.module.html#framework= .module.fragmenthost]. This way the fragment (in our case groovy-xml) could= live inside the groovy bundle and add it's own classes. > groovy-all pom approach breaks OSGi due to split-packages > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: GROOVY-8666 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8666 > Project: Groovy > Issue Type: Bug > Components: release > Affects Versions: 2.5.0 > Reporter: Josef H=C3=A4rtl > Priority: Critical > > The splitting of groovy into smaller causes another, very major, problem: > First, consider the "main" groovy jar: It contains the package groovy.uti= l with numerous classes. > Secondly, consider the=C2=A0groovy-xml jar. It contains the package groov= y.util and therein the classes XMLParser etc. > Regardless whether you use OSGi (like in our case) or Java 9 (what we are= migrating to): This presents a split-package itself: As we already reprodu= ced in our build: Whatever jar of these is loaded first wins the groovy.uti= l package and "overrides" the other. > As a result, it's become random whether our users can use XMLParser or no= t. Sometimes it is found, sometimes it's not. I consider this a very major = problem and a blocker as it makes execution unreliable and randomish. I did= not check but somewhat guess that this is not the only collision of this s= ort. > Therefore, the splitting of groovy 2.5 into smaller pieces introduced spl= it-packages to itself. If one wants to split groovy, the split will have to= follow package borders. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)