Re: [EXT] Re: Joint Compilation Limits and Alternatives

2023-06-29 Thread Jochen Theodorou
On 29.06.23 20:39, Christopher Smith wrote: Implementing javax.annotation.processing would cover a lot of surface area because it exposes the Java AST (via the RoundEnvironment methods) and the entire TypeMirror "Spock in a goatee" representation of the Java classes under processing. This means t

Re: [EXT] Re: Joint Compilation Limits and Alternatives

2023-06-29 Thread Christopher Smith
I also use Lombok almost universally for Java files, so I understand its importance! I was paying attention to the stub-compilation approach, which would still run through javac and thus native Java files would be affected. If you're thinking more on the joint side, then I'd have to think more befo

Re: [EXT] Re: Joint Compilation Limits and Alternatives

2023-06-29 Thread Jochen Theodorou
On 29.06.23 19:28, Christopher Smith wrote: One note I'll add is that while Lombok was presented as an example of a Java annotation processor, it really isn't—it's a monkey-patch of javac itself, as otherwise annotation processors can't modify classes, just add new ones. I am actually aware of

Re: [EXT] Re: Joint Compilation Limits and Alternatives

2023-06-29 Thread Christopher Smith
One note I'll add is that while Lombok was presented as an example of a Java annotation processor, it really isn't—it's a monkey-patch of javac itself, as otherwise annotation processors can't modify classes, just add new ones. Regarding "regular" annotation processors, it would be possible to impl

Re: [EXT] Re: Joint Compilation Limits and Alternatives

2023-06-29 Thread Jochen Theodorou
On 29.06.23 16:24, Milles, Eric (TR Technology) via dev wrote: Thanks for raising that issue. It has been a limitation for some folks for quite a while. I am very keen to improve our joint compilation process if we can. I was actually wondering if someone really still cares. I do get issue

RE: [EXT] Re: Joint Compilation Limits and Alternatives

2023-06-29 Thread Milles, Eric (TR Technology) via dev
>> Thanks for raising that issue. It has been a limitation for some folks for >> quite a while. I am very keen to improve our joint compilation process if we >> can. > > I was actually wondering if someone really still cares. I do get issues quite often (for groovy-eclipse tooling) that expect

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Groovy 3.0.18 Released

2023-06-29 Thread Paul King
Dear community, The Apache Groovy team is pleased to announce version 3.0.18 of Apache Groovy. Apache Groovy is a multi-faceted programming language for the JVM. Further details can be found at the https://groovy.apache.org website. This release is a maintenance release of the GROOVY_3_0_X branch

Re: Joint Compilation Limits and Alternatives

2023-06-29 Thread Jochen Theodorou
On 29.06.23 07:52, Paul King wrote: Hi Jochen, Thanks for raising that issue. It has been a limitation for some folks for quite a while. I am very keen to improve our joint compilation process if we can. I was actually wondering if someone really still cares. I did try one experiment to imp

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Groovy 4.0.13 Released

2023-06-29 Thread Paul King
Dear community, The Apache Groovy team is pleased to announce version 4.0.13 of Apache Groovy. Apache Groovy is a multi-faceted programming language for the JVM. Further details can be found at the https://groovy.apache.org website. This release is a maintenance release of the GROOVY_4_0_X branch

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 3.0.18

2023-06-29 Thread Paul King
The vote has passed with FIVE +1 PMC votes, ONE +1 additional vote, and no other votes. I'll proceed with the next steps. Cheers, Paul. On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:51 PM Paul King wrote: > > Dear development community, > > I am happy to start the VOTE thread for a Groovy 3.0.18 release! > > This