On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 15:42 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote:
> Given Cédric's email and recent comments I think I have been
> convinced to change my vote to a -1 for changing Maven coordinates or
> package names.
> Is there a compelling technical argument for either change? Going by
> the old adage, "if it ain't broke don't fix it", what exactly is
> being "fixed"? It seems most arguments in favour are
> political/aesthetic and not technical in nature.
If "if it ain't broke don't fix it" was a really good idea, we'd still
be hunter gatherers with no cities, cars, computers, etc.
Given the arguments so far, the best position as I see it is:
1. Change the Maven group to org.apache.groovy with Groovy 3, leave as
is for Groovy 2
2. Leave the package structure as is for Groovy 2, but in Groovy 3 put
all new classes in org.apache.groovy rather than org.codehaus.groovy.
This will require more imports than desirable but as the code evolves
IDEA will indicate when imports become redundant.
3. At leisure in Groovy 3 add a redirect layer to allow classes to
transition from org.codehaus.groovy to org.apache.groovy.
4. In Groovy 4 have all the classes not in groovy or groovyx in
org.apache.groovy with a bridging module for the org.codehaus.groovy
namespace for legacy application code. If JRE9 is all it is cracked up
to be, this should be doable.
> Besides, think of using org.codehaus.groovy as paying homage to
> Groovy's long and storied history. ;-)
Whilst interesting for sentimental reasons, not a good rationale