groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Miro Bezjak <bezjak.m...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Maven coordinates going forward
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:08:58 GMT
-1 for both maven coordinates and package change. Please don't break
backwards compatibility. Maybe I'm missing something but I see no good
reason for either change.

As others have mentioned, there is a lot of unmaintained code that would
stop working as a result of a package change. So in my opinion, pros would
need to be greater than the fact that the whole groovy ecosystem can
suddenly do less than before the change.

As for maven coordinates, please see Cédric's mail. Again, pros do not
outweigh the cons in my opinion. Dependecy resolution conflict problem that
doesn't exist if maven coordinates stay the same.

Just my 2 cents.

On Mar 28, 2017 7:42 PM, "Cédric Champeau" <cedric.champeau@gmail.com>
wrote:

One thing one has to consider when changing Maven coordinates, is... Maven.
Despite being a build tool, it does a fairly poor job when coordinates
change. In particular, think of conflict resolution. What should it decide
if A depends on org.codehaus.groovy:2.4.10 and B depends on
org.apache.groovy:groovy-all:3.0? Maven is pretty bad at this. We have
strategies to deal with this in Gradle (dependency substitution), but it
will imply that projects could find different artifacts on classpath in the
future, for a dependency on Groovy.

That said, I'm open to changing the coordinates. I would do this for the
"breaking" version of Groovy, whatever it is, but not before. Which means,
the same version as the one we change package names.

2017-03-28 19:03 GMT+02:00 Keegan Witt <keeganwitt@gmail.com>:

> I'm +1 on Maven coordinate change.  That should be fairly low impact.
>
> I agree package renames should be taken on a case-by-case basis.  Offhand,
> the two biggest things that come to mind are custom ASTs, and the
> compilation bits.  For the former, I'd think it shouldn't be any worse than
> the groovy.transforms move.  For the latter, it might make sense to wait to
> rename that package until the compilation is decoupled from the core.
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 27.03.2017 22:14, Wilson MacGyver wrote:
>>
>>> as I recall, there are also rules about jigsaw not allowing same package
>>> path from multiple modules. It's not till java 9, but that maybe a
>>> concern.
>>>
>>
>> That is right, yes... it is only a problem for Groovy as named or
>> automatic module though. As long as Groovy stays in the
>> classpath/annonymous module variant, there is no such problem with multiple
>> jars, as long as the overlapping package names are all from the
>> classpath/annonymous module
>>
>>
>> bye Jochen
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message