groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Maven coordinates going forward
Date Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:16:07 GMT
To me the idea would be to be able to run Groovy 2 and Groovy NG
concurrently.

2017-03-30 15:12 GMT+02:00 Winnebeck, Jason <Jason.Winnebeck@windstream.com>
:

> Can you explain the story around a library like
> org.codehaus.groovy.modules.http-builder:http-builder, which is no longer
> really maintained? What happens to such a library when Groovy 3 comes out
> and we are using that library? Let's say there is no maintainer to update
> the sources to Groovy 3 and re-release.
>
> Jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russel Winder [mailto:russel@winder.org.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:54 AM
> To: users@groovy.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Maven coordinates going forward
>
> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:26 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> > We have to keep in mind that there's a larger story here, which is
> > supporting Groovy as a module. And this *will* require package changes
> > and binary breaking changes. So I don't think the status quo is
> > acceptable in the long run.
>
> So why not make Groovy 3 the place to do this?
>
> Whatever has been said about the Python situation, the core problem was
> not the breaking change, the problem was the lack of active management of
> the change.
>
> Python is a source deployment language where JRE-based langauges are not.
> Thus JRE-based application have the classic COBOL, FORTRAN, and Fortran
> problem of "we've lost the source" (banks and governments are the usual
> suspects for this). I would exclude this situation from our thinking.
> Organisations in such a state (as some UK banks and the UK government is)
> should take it as an opportunity to revolutionise (which the UK government
> is, cf. the job adverts for COBOL, FORTRAN and Fortran knowledgeable people
> who also know Python, Java, etc.
>
> Python also had the problem of Python 2.6 and 2.7 along with 3.3 and
> 3.4 (3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 can safely be ignored now). Having 2.6 and 3.3 in
> the mix made for a very hard time. Allowing only 2.7 and 3.4+ in the mix
> made for a much, much easier time. So initially moving from Python
> 2 to Python 3 was a manual task (bad management by the Python 3 folk),
> then came the six generation of upgrade tooling (a start). By dropping
> 2.6 and 3.3, we get the far nicer future upgrade tooling (which works
> nicely to create 2.7 and 3.4+ compatible code). The moral here is choose
> the versions being upgraded from and to, and then make some nice automation.
>
> So if we assume a base of Groovy 2.4 and ignore all previous Groovys and
> the breaking change of 3.0 can we write some Groovy (obviously :-) scripts
> that automate source changes?
>
> If the Python 2 → Python 3 breaking change had been more actively managed
> with earlier arrival of six and future, the problems would have been much
> less. Most of the vocal Python 2 Remainers have now made their codes run on
> both Python 2 and Python 3, and there are very few complaints about
> providing Python 3 only. OK so there are still a few people who say "we
> must support Python 2.5" but those people are few and far between and are,
> in the main, totally ignored. Python 4 will undoubtedly have breaking
> changes, but they will be better managed in terms of supporting
> multi-version working and automated (well at least
> semi-automated) upgrading and mixed-version working. The lessons of six
> and future have been well learned.
>
> So Groovy will have breaking changes, this is right and proper. Put in
> place tools for upgrading, and support multi-version working where possible
> and practical. Do not be swayed by calls for "we must change nothing,
> backward compatibility". They have a version of Groovy that works for them
> so they should not upgrade – ever again. That must not stop the rest of us
> from progressing.
>
> --
> Russel.
> ============================================================
> =================
> Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip:
> sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net
> 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk
> London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
>
> This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
> message and any attachments.
>

Mime
View raw message