Okay, my proposal was based on the meaning of “security” as a group rather
than referencing to a specific library (remaining open to other security
libraries) but I can see your concerns.
It may be better not to reverse the spring security name.
It could be “grails-security-spring-security” but I
I don't think we should rename any repositories until builds are fully
working. It will delay the 7 release process otherwise. The goal of this
discussion is specific to the groupid / artifactid.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:46 PM Gianluca Sartori
wrote:
> Yes, I am just talking about the reposi
@Gianluca, were you ok with the latest draft?
https://github.com/apache/grails-core/pull/14080
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:56 PM Gianluca Sartori
wrote:
> Okay sounds good
>
> Gianluca
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 17:52, James Daugherty
> wrote:
>
> > I don't think we should rename any repositor
I updated the PR to include Robert's feedback.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:07 AM Robert Oschwald
wrote:
> Just my 2c:
>
> grails-data-hibernate[5|6]-migration I would name
> grails-data-hibernate[5|6]-dbmigration
>
>
>
> > Am 20.03.2025 um 15:54 schrieb James Daugherty <
> jdaughe...@jdresources.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 00:24, James Daugherty
wrote:
> Mattias made a good point in his open PR: there are other security
> frameworks such as https://shiro.apache.org/. This convinced me to keep
> the 'spring' in the name to be clear.
>
True. I still have this feeling though that everything sp
Here are the differences between James Fredley's proposal and Mattias's (I
couldn't attach an image unfortunately):
grails-codecs-core
grails-databinding-core
grails-gradle-plugins
grails-gsp
spring-security-rest-testapp
grails-views-js
I have made another iteration based on James' latest updates and some great
observations and suggestions from this thread.
- Make sections for "NORMAL", GRADLE, PROFILES and FORGE
- Sort by artifactId (I found some collisions, added '-core' to those)
- Rename some artifactIds
- Remove '-views' f
> Spring calls these starters, grails calls them plugins.
I'm not sure this analogy is 100% correct. Aren't Spring Starters just
dependency aggregators, not bringing any code of their own.
Maybe Spring AutoConfigurations are more analogous to Grails Plugins?
Anyways, I think the concept of Plugins
> On gson vs json: if we introduce other json options in the future (i.e.
jackson) this could cause confusion. I'd rather we call them gson since
that's the underlying technology.
I'm fine with using gson instead of json.
Den tors 20 mars 2025 kl 14:40 skrev Mattias Reichel <
mattias.reic...@gmai
Just my 2c:
grails-data-hibernate[5|6]-migration I would name
grails-data-hibernate[5|6]-dbmigration
> Am 20.03.2025 um 15:54 schrieb James Daugherty
> :
>
> Does this proposal address all of the issues then?
>
> https://github.com/apache/grails-core/pull/14080
10 matches
Mail list logo
