I created an issue for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-884
I labeled it as "breaking" as I suppose it is possible that users might be depending on groovy-all in some way and this change removes that dependency. On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Jason Plurad <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 David Robinson and I had taken a look at that groovy-all dependency > before TP3 release, but didn't get around to a PR. I think there were some > Creative Commons-licensed images in one of the groovy modules that some > folks around here didn't like. > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Matt Frantz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +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? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Have a good one, > Jason >
