I’m a bit OCD and it makes little sense to continue developing against coordinates and packages with a naming scheme that represents a defunct brand/organization.
So I vote for a coordinate change. If the coordinate changes, then the package naming should change too in my opinion. This solves any transitive dependency clashes since my project could import apache packages and any transitive dependencies can continue to depend on and use the old codehaus packages. Then put the old codehaus branded branches/versions in maintenance and do all new development against the new coordinate and package structure. Is this not the whole point of releasing versioned binaries? It just means a couple of extra steps when I upgrade. First, change the coordinates (group + version instead of just the version) and a quick refactor of my imports. Every modern IDE makes this easy. <off to take my OCD meds> 😊 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Keegan Witt Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:24 PM To: users@groovy.apache.org Subject: Re: Maven coordinates going forward That's a good point. It could cause some issues for Groovy as a transitive dependency, but doing a global exclude in Maven is fairly easy to do. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com> wrote: One thing one has to consider when changing Maven coordinates, is... Maven. Despite being a build tool, it does a fairly poor job when coordinates change. In particular, think of conflict resolution. What should it decide if A depends on org.codehaus.groovy:2.4.10 and B depends on org.apache.groovy:groovy-all:3.0? Maven is pretty bad at this. We have strategies to deal with this in Gradle (dependency substitution), but it will imply that projects could find different artifacts on classpath in the future, for a dependency on Groovy. That said, I'm open to changing the coordinates. I would do this for the "breaking" version of Groovy, whatever it is, but not before. Which means, the same version as the one we change package names. 2017-03-28 19:03 GMT+02:00 Keegan Witt <keeganw...@gmail.com>: I'm +1 on Maven coordinate change. That should be fairly low impact. I agree package renames should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Offhand, the two biggest things that come to mind are custom ASTs, and the compilation bits. For the former, I'd think it shouldn't be any worse than the groovy.transforms move. For the latter, it might make sense to wait to rename that package until the compilation is decoupled from the core. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote: On 27.03.2017 22:14, Wilson MacGyver wrote: as I recall, there are also rules about jigsaw not allowing same package path from multiple modules. It's not till java 9, but that maybe a concern. That is right, yes... it is only a problem for Groovy as named or automatic module though. As long as Groovy stays in the classpath/annonymous module variant, there is no such problem with multiple jars, as long as the overlapping package names are all from the classpath/annonymous module bye Jochen
