Hi, I vote for cleanup. The smaller we make TinkerPop the better -- less chance for license issues, less chance for jar dependency enforcer issues, smaller distribution sizes….
Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Oct 12, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > This might have been brought up before, but we depend on groovy-all in > gremlin-groovy. Seems like we could get by with "less" and focus on the > specific components of groovy that we want. Specifically, I think we could > drop: > > + groovy-console > + groovy-swing > + groovy-templates > + groovy-xml > > without any specific changes to code. we could likely exclude (with minor > code change): > > + groovy-sql > + groovy-json > > but i kinda like those present as a convenience to users. of course, if > users want them they are easy enough to add with the :install command. > > I'd see this as a 3.1.0 change - not trying to rush in a change on 3.0.2 at > this point. > > Anyone think we should stick with groovy-all or would it be better to > "clean up" a bit?
