Could your "picocli.groovy" package move to the groovy-cli-picocli subproject?
________________________________ From: Mario Garcia <mario.g...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 3:05 PM To: us...@groovy.apache.org Cc: dev@groovy.apache.org Subject: Re: requesting your advice on picocli modules + 1 picoli-groovy.jar Great project BTW! El jue., 30 may. 2019 a las 14:51, Remko Popma (<remko.po...@gmail.com<mailto:remko.po...@gmail.com>>) escribió: Hi, I maintain the picocli library for creating command line applications in Groovy, Java, and other JVM languages. I have a question for the Groovy community (both users and developers): Currently, the picocli main jar contains both the core `picocli` package and a `picocli.groovy` package with classes that make it easy for Groovy scripts to use picocli annotations. I'm considering splitting up this jar. In an upcoming major release of the library I plan to provide a Java 9 JPMS modular jar containing just the core `picocli` package and additionally a `module-info.class` to make this jar a full-fledged Java module. The question is what to do with the picocli.groovy package. I see two options: 1) have a `picocli-groovy` jar containing _only_ the picocli.groovy package - this jar would require (have a dependency on) the core picocli jar (the JPMS modular jar). Ideally this `picocli-groovy` jar would also be a JPMS module, but not sure if that's possible. 2) have a `picocli-legacy?` (name TBD) jar containing both the core picocli package and the picocli.groovy package - similar to the current picocli-3.9.x jar I believe the first option may be cleanest. Scripts would need to change their grape module from @Grab('info.picocli:picocli:$version') to @Grab('info.picocli:picocli-groovy:4.0.0') and that would bring in the transitive dependency on 'info.picocli:picocli:4.0.0', if my understanding is correct. Can anyone see any drawbacks with this approach? Would there be any point in additionally providing a `picocli-legacy` (name TBD) jar containing both the core picocli package and the picocli.groovy package, similar to the current picocli-3.9.x jar? On a side-note, has anyone had any issues with putting the `module-info.class` in the root of the modular jar versus putting it in META-INF/versions/9/ in the jar? Some people<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_moditect_moditect_issues_67&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=tPJuIuL_GkTEazjQW7vvl7mNWVGXn3yJD5LGBHYYHww&m=cocTYR8h3W8Rgqstyq52P9cQq-9lpVTUcc3nlMo8bI4&s=rZMbQ03MlXNGQEPuzueT5_EYYUeSQF8iF1JOgKJpqSw&e=> use META-INF/versions/9/ as a way to (hopefully) avoid issues with older tools unable to cope with the `module-info.class`. Does anyone have any experience with this? Remko
