+1 for pruning dependencies. Leaving things in "just in case" is probably not a good strategy. After all, we took Guava out ;)
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > >
