That has been the thinking Jim. Not before 3.0.
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 4:47 PM, jim northrop < [email protected]> wrote: > Just thinking, has any thought been given to changing our package name > from org.codehaus.groovy to org.apache.groovy ? Would imagine this is a > deal-breaker for backward compatibility, but maybe groovy 3.0 ? > > Sent from my iPad > > On 4 Mar 2017, at 06:38, Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > > You are correct in observing that we don't do any special pom > configuration for the indy artifacts. At the moment you are best using the > indy version of the "groovy-all" jar otherwise a bunch of excludes is > required as you've already discovered. > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Raviteja Lokineni < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I was using groovy-templates:indy in my projects but the dependency tree >> was showing non-indy dependencies. So I had to do this: >> >> compile 'org.codehaus.groovy:groovy:2.4.7:indy' >> compile ('org.codehaus.groovy:groovy-templates:2.4.7:indy') { >> exclude module: 'groovy' >> exclude module: 'groovy-xml' >> } >> compile ('org.codehaus.groovy:groovy-xml:2.4.8:indy') { >> exclude module: 'groovy' >> } >> >> Is this a known issue? >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> *Raviteja Lokineni* | Business Intelligence Developer >> TD Ameritrade >> >> E: [email protected] >> >> [image: View Raviteja Lokineni's profile on LinkedIn] >> <http://in.linkedin.com/in/ravitejalokineni> >> >> >
