Hi Remko,
I agree option 1) is the cleanest, as well as it being the direction all
of Groovy seems to be moving.
Cheers,
mg
On 30/05/2019 14:50, Remko Popma wrote:
Hi,
I maintain the picocli library for creating command line applications
in Groovy, Java, and other JVM languages.
I have a question for the Groovy community (both users and developers):
Currently, the picocli main jar contains both the core `picocli`
package and a `picocli.groovy` package with classes that make it easy
for Groovy scripts to use picocli annotations. I'm considering
splitting up this jar.
In an upcoming major release of the library I plan to provide a Java 9
JPMS modular jar containing just the core `picocli` package and
additionally a `module-info.class` to make this jar a full-fledged
Java module.
The question is what to do with the picocli.groovy package. I see two
options:
1) have a `picocli-groovy` jar containing _only_ the picocli.groovy
package - this jar would require (have a dependency on) the core
picocli jar (the JPMS modular jar). Ideally this `picocli-groovy` jar
would also be a JPMS module, but not sure if that's possible.
2) have a `picocli-legacy?` (name TBD) jar containing both the core
picocli package and the picocli.groovy package - similar to the
current picocli-3.9.x jar
I believe the first option may be cleanest. Scripts would need to
change their grape module from @Grab('info.picocli:picocli:$version')
to @Grab('info.picocli:picocli-groovy:4.0.0') and that would bring in
the transitive dependency on 'info.picocli:picocli:4.0.0', if my
understanding is correct.
Can anyone see any drawbacks with this approach?
Would there be any point in additionally providing a `picocli-legacy`
(name TBD) jar containing both the core picocli package and the
picocli.groovy package, similar to the current picocli-3.9.x jar?
On a side-note, has anyone had any issues with putting the
`module-info.class` in the root of the modular jar versus putting it
in META-INF/versions/9/ in the jar?
Some people <https://github.com/moditect/moditect/issues/67> use
META-INF/versions/9/ as a way to (hopefully) avoid issues with older
tools unable to cope with the `module-info.class`. Does anyone have
any experience with this?
Remko
