To me the idea would be to be able to run Groovy 2 and Groovy NG concurrently.
2017-03-30 15:12 GMT+02:00 Winnebeck, Jason <jason.winneb...@windstream.com> : > Can you explain the story around a library like > org.codehaus.groovy.modules.http-builder:http-builder, which is no longer > really maintained? What happens to such a library when Groovy 3 comes out > and we are using that library? Let's say there is no maintainer to update > the sources to Groovy 3 and re-release. > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: Russel Winder [mailto:rus...@winder.org.uk] > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:54 AM > To: users@groovy.apache.org > Subject: Re: Maven coordinates going forward > > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:26 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote: > > We have to keep in mind that there's a larger story here, which is > > supporting Groovy as a module. And this *will* require package changes > > and binary breaking changes. So I don't think the status quo is > > acceptable in the long run. > > So why not make Groovy 3 the place to do this? > > Whatever has been said about the Python situation, the core problem was > not the breaking change, the problem was the lack of active management of > the change. > > Python is a source deployment language where JRE-based langauges are not. > Thus JRE-based application have the classic COBOL, FORTRAN, and Fortran > problem of "we've lost the source" (banks and governments are the usual > suspects for this). I would exclude this situation from our thinking. > Organisations in such a state (as some UK banks and the UK government is) > should take it as an opportunity to revolutionise (which the UK government > is, cf. the job adverts for COBOL, FORTRAN and Fortran knowledgeable people > who also know Python, Java, etc. > > Python also had the problem of Python 2.6 and 2.7 along with 3.3 and > 3.4 (3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 can safely be ignored now). Having 2.6 and 3.3 in > the mix made for a very hard time. Allowing only 2.7 and 3.4+ in the mix > made for a much, much easier time. So initially moving from Python > 2 to Python 3 was a manual task (bad management by the Python 3 folk), > then came the six generation of upgrade tooling (a start). By dropping > 2.6 and 3.3, we get the far nicer future upgrade tooling (which works > nicely to create 2.7 and 3.4+ compatible code). The moral here is choose > the versions being upgraded from and to, and then make some nice automation. > > So if we assume a base of Groovy 2.4 and ignore all previous Groovys and > the breaking change of 3.0 can we write some Groovy (obviously :-) scripts > that automate source changes? > > If the Python 2 → Python 3 breaking change had been more actively managed > with earlier arrival of six and future, the problems would have been much > less. Most of the vocal Python 2 Remainers have now made their codes run on > both Python 2 and Python 3, and there are very few complaints about > providing Python 3 only. OK so there are still a few people who say "we > must support Python 2.5" but those people are few and far between and are, > in the main, totally ignored. Python 4 will undoubtedly have breaking > changes, but they will be better managed in terms of supporting > multi-version working and automated (well at least > semi-automated) upgrading and mixed-version working. The lessons of six > and future have been well learned. > > So Groovy will have breaking changes, this is right and proper. Put in > place tools for upgrading, and support multi-version working where possible > and practical. Do not be swayed by calls for "we must change nothing, > backward compatibility". They have a version of Groovy that works for them > so they should not upgrade – ever again. That must not stop the rest of us > from progressing. > > -- > Russel. > ============================================================ > ================= > Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: > sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net > 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > > This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the > intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original > message and any attachments. >
