Ok, fine. Let me know if u need any help 4 that one 😉
Sent from my iPad
> On 4 Mar 2017, at 07:54, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
> That has been the thinking Jim. Not before 3.0.
>
>
>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 4:47 PM, jim northrop
>> <james.b.north...@googlemail.com> 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 <pa...@asert.com.au> 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
>>>> <raviteja.lokin...@gmail.com> 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: raviteja.lokin...@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
