You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@groovy.apache.org by Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> on 2016/01/28 20:22:51 UTC
Groovy 3.0
Hi! Does anyone have any information on the status of Groovy 3.0? Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
--
Clark Richey
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
240.252.7507
CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
WWW.FACTGEM.COM
This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com>.
That would be very nice to have.
Sent from my iPhone
>
--
Clark Richey
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
240.252.7507
CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
WWW.FACTGEM.COM
This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
On Jan 29, 2016, at 03:25, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The other big item we had envisioned for Groovy 3 were the rewrite of
> the grammar to Antlr v4, so as to support Java 8 language constructs.
>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 29.01.2016 00:16, Edinson E. Padrón U. wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Guillaume.
>>>
>>> In my very humble opinion (and it should be noticed that I'm very far
>>> away to know the Groovy community and language internals as well as you
>>> do), the Python 2.x vs 3.x 'war' was due to mainly a very slow adoption
>>> of the 3.x branch from the different third-party libraries. Even though
>>> the 3.x branch is far better than its predecessor, the community stuck
>>> with the 2.x branch because of the incompatibility of the libraries
>>> their depended on.
>>
>>
>> I wish you had any idea about how many projects did still use Groovy 1.8 a
>> year ago. It required a CVE for them to even consider changing.
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Jigsaw is inevitable and that for itself
>>> require to break backward compatibility.
>>
>>
>> yes and no.. no, because this does not *require* a new MOP, which is all
>> Groovy3 originally was about. Yes, there will be breaking changes... our
>> extension methods will for example have to use proper service provider
>> mechanism, our modules may have to move a few classes because of the
>> almighty no same package for two modules paradigm - just to just name two
>> random items. It would be a good chance though to introduce a new MOP...
>> here I agree.
>>
>> bye Jochen
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Laforge
> Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Social: @glaforge / Google+
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
The other big item we had envisioned for Groovy 3 were the rewrite of
the grammar to Antlr v4, so as to support Java 8 language constructs.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 29.01.2016 00:16, Edinson E. Padrón U. wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Guillaume.
>>
>> In my very humble opinion (and it should be noticed that I'm very far
>> away to know the Groovy community and language internals as well as you
>> do), the Python 2.x vs 3.x 'war' was due to mainly a very slow adoption
>> of the 3.x branch from the different third-party libraries. Even though
>> the 3.x branch is far better than its predecessor, the community stuck
>> with the 2.x branch because of the incompatibility of the libraries
>> their depended on.
>
>
> I wish you had any idea about how many projects did still use Groovy 1.8 a
> year ago. It required a CVE for them to even consider changing.
>
> [...]
>>
>> Jigsaw is inevitable and that for itself
>> require to break backward compatibility.
>
>
> yes and no.. no, because this does not *require* a new MOP, which is all
> Groovy3 originally was about. Yes, there will be breaking changes... our
> extension methods will for example have to use proper service provider
> mechanism, our modules may have to move a few classes because of the
> almighty no same package for two modules paradigm - just to just name two
> random items. It would be a good chance though to introduce a new MOP...
> here I agree.
>
> bye Jochen
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge / Google+
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
On 29.01.2016 00:16, Edinson E. Padrón U. wrote:
> Hi, Guillaume.
>
> In my very humble opinion (and it should be noticed that I'm very far
> away to know the Groovy community and language internals as well as you
> do), the Python 2.x vs 3.x 'war' was due to mainly a very slow adoption
> of the 3.x branch from the different third-party libraries. Even though
> the 3.x branch is far better than its predecessor, the community stuck
> with the 2.x branch because of the incompatibility of the libraries
> their depended on.
I wish you had any idea about how many projects did still use Groovy 1.8
a year ago. It required a CVE for them to even consider changing.
[...]
> Jigsaw is inevitable and that for itself
> require to break backward compatibility.
yes and no.. no, because this does not *require* a new MOP, which is all
Groovy3 originally was about. Yes, there will be breaking changes... our
extension methods will for example have to use proper service provider
mechanism, our modules may have to move a few classes because of the
almighty no same package for two modules paradigm - just to just name
two random items. It would be a good chance though to introduce a new
MOP... here I agree.
bye Jochen
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by "Edinson E. Padrón U." <ed...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Guillaume.
In my very humble opinion (and it should be noticed that I'm very far
away to know the Groovy community and language internals as well as you
do), the Python 2.x vs 3.x 'war' was due to mainly a very slow adoption
of the 3.x branch from the different third-party libraries. Even though
the 3.x branch is far better than its predecessor, the community stuck
with the 2.x branch because of the incompatibility of the libraries
their depended on. It should be notice that a lot of third-party Python
libraries are poorly maintained or not maintained at all. Most of the
projects heavily used and supported where ported relatively quickly.
IMHO the Groovy ecosystem doesn't lack of support as many of the Python
libraries do. An awesome tool the Python's devs created was the 2to3
program to port almost every 2.x program to 3.x. That could be of help
in the Groovy 3 situation. Jigsaw is inevitable and that for itself
require to break backward compatibility. C++ and Java itself are two
languages who knows how problematic is to avoid at any cost breaking
backward compatibility and at least C++ can be a big pain some times
just because of that.
Cheers.
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
We also fear the big 3.0 release, in a way :-)
It's always been on a far horizon, as a kind of target to reach, and also
as a release where we want to put breaking changes.
But some other languages like Python faced issues with a big milestone like
that, as users stayed on the old 2.x branch forever.
So we're a bit cautious with this big 3.0 release, and don't want to
over-promise anything.
Guillaume
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> Yes, we spoke about putting back some kind of roadmap page that was in the
> old website (and I have an action to make some progress in that regard).
> But we didn't want to make the roadmap unrealistic either, so we want to
> get the wording right.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. I just haven't been able to find much information in development
>> status since the website changes occurred and I was vaguely concerned.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> <#-1988065151_-1730537106_>
>>
>> Clark Richey
>>
>> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
>> 240.252.7507
>> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
>> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
>> affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
>> contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
>> confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
>> copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
>> may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
>> believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
>> message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 14:56, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> We are still working on getting 2.5 out the door. Only a little bit of
>> experimental/spike work has gone in regards to 3.0 .
>>
>> Cheers, Paul.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi! Does anyone have any information on the status of Groovy 3.0? Thanks!
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> <pic-0.png> <#-1988065151_-1730537106_-410294724_>
>>>
>>> Clark Richey
>>>
>>> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
>>> 240.252.7507
>>> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
>>> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and
>>> its affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
>>> contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
>>> confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
>>> copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
>>> may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
>>> believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
>>> message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
On 06.02.2016 09:37, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Paco Zarate <contacto@nazcasistemas.com
> <ma...@nazcasistemas.com>> wrote:
>
> For reference here is a java 8 grammar for antlr 4.
> https://github.com/antlr/grammars-v4/tree/master/java8/Java8.g4
>
>
> Initially, I was thinking we should start with a blank slate, instead of
> doing the same approach as we did in the past, which is indeed start
> from an existing Java grammar... but OTOH... it's likely better Java 8
> support out of the box to do so.
A Java grammar has been made with Java in mind, not Groovy. Look at all
the modifications we had to do to the grammar we started with we are
currently using. There are huge changes. Plus the error reporting is not
all that good if the grammar makes a check. I have no idea if that is
improved with antlr4, but a custom error message can always give a much
more to the point error message, than a general error message generated
from the grammar could do. And not only that... for our uses the old
grammar is overly complicated. Part of this is because of the checks,
but there is also lacking abstraction (from a Groovy point of view only
though).
bye Jochen
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Paco Zarate <co...@nazcasistemas.com>
wrote:
> For reference here is a java 8 grammar for antlr 4.
> https://github.com/antlr/grammars-v4/tree/master/java8/Java8.g4
>
Initially, I was thinking we should start with a blank slate, instead of
doing the same approach as we did in the past, which is indeed start from
an existing Java grammar... but OTOH... it's likely better Java 8 support
out of the box to do so.
> One good thing that groovy has for its version 2 to version 3 transition
> is that all the java libraries would be available. This would be a key
> difference with the python 2 -> 3 migration.
>
True. Good point.
It's indeed more an apple to orange comparison, so we should perhaps not
bring that counter-example on the table. My fault.
Guillaume
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Esteban Gínez <eg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys
>> That's awesome.
>> It would be more so if you could share the details/instructions on the
>> working environment, perhaps a wiki?. It would make it easier to help out
>> and contribute to the task :D
>>
>> I was personally investigating ways on hooking up antlr grammar to the
>> new graal/truffle infraestructure. At this point is a lot more of an idea
>> than a concrete proposal.
>> Anyways keep up the good work
>> E.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Great news Jesper!
>>>
>>> Please keep us updated on your progress, and if you need any help, don't
>>> hesitate.
>>> Indeed the first milestone is to get a working environment, and the
>>> second one to be able to have the same scope as the current parser, ideally
>>> generating the same AST (but perhaps there might be areas where we might
>>> think some updates are needed)
>>> For the third milestone, that would be discussing and progressivly
>>> adding the Java 8 related construct we want to support or not in Groovy 3.
>>>
>>> Guillaume
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jesper Steen Møller <
>>> jesper@selskabet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi list
>>>>
>>>> On 31.01.2016 21:29, Thibault Kruse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Are Antlr 4 and Jva 8 syntax linked somethow, meaning is there a hard
>>>> > problem describing certain java8 features using whatever antlr version
>>>> > is used right now?
>>>>
>>>> I’ve decided to give the Antlr4 task another go.
>>>> I had some major trouble getting a reasonable development setup (even
>>>> with IntelliJ), but now it seems I can actually get the ball rolling with a
>>>> reasonable unit test turnaround time (again using Eclipse and a slightly
>>>> patched Groovy-Eclipse compiler).
>>>>
>>>> I guess the next milestone is to ensure that the parser derives the
>>>> same AST’s as the Antlr2 parser, but before that there are some constructs
>>>> I know aren’t behaving correctly.
>>>>
>>>> -Jesper
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Guillaume Laforge
>>> Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
>>> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
>>>
>>> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
>>> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
>>> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Paco Zarate <co...@nazcasistemas.com>.
For reference here is a java 8 grammar for antlr 4.
https://github.com/antlr/grammars-v4/tree/master/java8/Java8.g4
One good thing that groovy has for its version 2 to version 3 transition is
that all the java libraries would be available. This would be a key
difference with the python 2 -> 3 migration.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Esteban Gínez <eg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey guys
> That's awesome.
> It would be more so if you could share the details/instructions on the
> working environment, perhaps a wiki?. It would make it easier to help out
> and contribute to the task :D
>
> I was personally investigating ways on hooking up antlr grammar to the new
> graal/truffle infraestructure. At this point is a lot more of an idea than
> a concrete proposal.
> Anyways keep up the good work
> E.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Great news Jesper!
>>
>> Please keep us updated on your progress, and if you need any help, don't
>> hesitate.
>> Indeed the first milestone is to get a working environment, and the
>> second one to be able to have the same scope as the current parser, ideally
>> generating the same AST (but perhaps there might be areas where we might
>> think some updates are needed)
>> For the third milestone, that would be discussing and progressivly adding
>> the Java 8 related construct we want to support or not in Groovy 3.
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jesper Steen Møller <
>> jesper@selskabet.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi list
>>>
>>> On 31.01.2016 21:29, Thibault Kruse wrote:
>>>
>>> > Are Antlr 4 and Jva 8 syntax linked somethow, meaning is there a hard
>>> > problem describing certain java8 features using whatever antlr version
>>> > is used right now?
>>>
>>> I’ve decided to give the Antlr4 task another go.
>>> I had some major trouble getting a reasonable development setup (even
>>> with IntelliJ), but now it seems I can actually get the ball rolling with a
>>> reasonable unit test turnaround time (again using Eclipse and a slightly
>>> patched Groovy-Eclipse compiler).
>>>
>>> I guess the next milestone is to ensure that the parser derives the same
>>> AST’s as the Antlr2 parser, but before that there are some constructs I
>>> know aren’t behaving correctly.
>>>
>>> -Jesper
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Guillaume Laforge
>> Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
>> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
>>
>> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
>> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
>> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
>>
>
>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Esteban Gínez <eg...@gmail.com>.
Hey guys
That's awesome.
It would be more so if you could share the details/instructions on the
working environment, perhaps a wiki?. It would make it easier to help out
and contribute to the task :D
I was personally investigating ways on hooking up antlr grammar to the new
graal/truffle infraestructure. At this point is a lot more of an idea than
a concrete proposal.
Anyways keep up the good work
E.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Great news Jesper!
>
> Please keep us updated on your progress, and if you need any help, don't
> hesitate.
> Indeed the first milestone is to get a working environment, and the second
> one to be able to have the same scope as the current parser, ideally
> generating the same AST (but perhaps there might be areas where we might
> think some updates are needed)
> For the third milestone, that would be discussing and progressivly adding
> the Java 8 related construct we want to support or not in Groovy 3.
>
> Guillaume
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jesper Steen Møller <jesper@selskabet.org
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi list
>>
>> On 31.01.2016 21:29, Thibault Kruse wrote:
>>
>> > Are Antlr 4 and Jva 8 syntax linked somethow, meaning is there a hard
>> > problem describing certain java8 features using whatever antlr version
>> > is used right now?
>>
>> I’ve decided to give the Antlr4 task another go.
>> I had some major trouble getting a reasonable development setup (even
>> with IntelliJ), but now it seems I can actually get the ball rolling with a
>> reasonable unit test turnaround time (again using Eclipse and a slightly
>> patched Groovy-Eclipse compiler).
>>
>> I guess the next milestone is to ensure that the parser derives the same
>> AST’s as the Antlr2 parser, but before that there are some constructs I
>> know aren’t behaving correctly.
>>
>> -Jesper
>
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Laforge
> Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
Great news Jesper!
Please keep us updated on your progress, and if you need any help, don't
hesitate.
Indeed the first milestone is to get a working environment, and the second
one to be able to have the same scope as the current parser, ideally
generating the same AST (but perhaps there might be areas where we might
think some updates are needed)
For the third milestone, that would be discussing and progressivly adding
the Java 8 related construct we want to support or not in Groovy 3.
Guillaume
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jesper Steen Møller <je...@selskabet.org>
wrote:
> Hi list
>
> On 31.01.2016 21:29, Thibault Kruse wrote:
>
> > Are Antlr 4 and Jva 8 syntax linked somethow, meaning is there a hard
> > problem describing certain java8 features using whatever antlr version
> > is used right now?
>
> I’ve decided to give the Antlr4 task another go.
> I had some major trouble getting a reasonable development setup (even with
> IntelliJ), but now it seems I can actually get the ball rolling with a
> reasonable unit test turnaround time (again using Eclipse and a slightly
> patched Groovy-Eclipse compiler).
>
> I guess the next milestone is to ensure that the parser derives the same
> AST’s as the Antlr2 parser, but before that there are some constructs I
> know aren’t behaving correctly.
>
> -Jesper
--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Jesper Steen Møller <je...@selskabet.org>.
Hi list
On 31.01.2016 21:29, Thibault Kruse wrote:
> Are Antlr 4 and Jva 8 syntax linked somethow, meaning is there a hard
> problem describing certain java8 features using whatever antlr version
> is used right now?
I’ve decided to give the Antlr4 task another go.
I had some major trouble getting a reasonable development setup (even with IntelliJ), but now it seems I can actually get the ball rolling with a reasonable unit test turnaround time (again using Eclipse and a slightly patched Groovy-Eclipse compiler).
I guess the next milestone is to ensure that the parser derives the same AST’s as the Antlr2 parser, but before that there are some constructs I know aren’t behaving correctly.
-Jesper
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Thibault Kruse <ti...@googlemail.com>.
So one thing that could be useful already is to add stories either in
JIRA or github for each of these epic (in size) issues individually,
where all discussions can be followed. Then a Roadmap document could
list these "epics" as large things on the horizon, without any
specific order or deadline. Then a mapping to release dates could be
done once these epics are close to being done. Maybe such epics
already exist.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 31.01.2016 21:29, Thibault Kruse wrote:
>>
>> Are Antlr 4 and Jva 8 syntax linked somethow, meaning is there a hard
>> problem describing certain java8 features using whatever antlr version
>> is used right now?
>
>
> They are linked in that way, that it does not really make sense to do bigger
> syntax changes in antlr2, if we then want to go to antlr4 would be double
> work to do it for antlr2 and antlr4. But thats actually all that is to it.
>
>> I would assume that porting Groovy to Java9 takes precendence over
>> changing the syntax, so it would be nice to have a roadmap that decide
>> which version will contain which of those changes.
>
>
> We can make a "1 feature per version" style roadmap.. without target
> times... not sure if that really makes sense though. If someone wants to
> work on a new feature out of order (because for example that person has a
> fitting current skill set for that task, but not for the scheduled one),
> then I am not really against this person doing that. A roadmap might be
> problematic in that... so we imho need one for enduser information and one
> for developers
>
>
>> Given the scarce
>> resources it might be useful to separate these changes, but given that
>> the API will change in either case, it might be better to have one
>> avalanche of a change rather than annoying users multiple times.
>
>
> It is normally better to release more often. I would have released a beta on
> Groovy 2.5 for example a long time ago, even without the module part
> completed. And that is mainly because I have experienced dragged out
> releases in the past before Groovy 1.0, and what negative effects they have.
> But anyway... a change that breaks compatibility is different. So I agree...
> but given the sparse resources, I am afraid it would be too long too. Best
> would be to have a migration plan, do the breaking changes in one release,
> but back that with old logic... if that is possible.
>
> bye Jochen
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
On 31.01.2016 21:29, Thibault Kruse wrote:
> Are Antlr 4 and Jva 8 syntax linked somethow, meaning is there a hard
> problem describing certain java8 features using whatever antlr version
> is used right now?
They are linked in that way, that it does not really make sense to do
bigger syntax changes in antlr2, if we then want to go to antlr4 would
be double work to do it for antlr2 and antlr4. But thats actually all
that is to it.
> I would assume that porting Groovy to Java9 takes precendence over
> changing the syntax, so it would be nice to have a roadmap that decide
> which version will contain which of those changes.
We can make a "1 feature per version" style roadmap.. without target
times... not sure if that really makes sense though. If someone wants to
work on a new feature out of order (because for example that person has
a fitting current skill set for that task, but not for the scheduled
one), then I am not really against this person doing that. A roadmap
might be problematic in that... so we imho need one for enduser
information and one for developers
> Given the scarce
> resources it might be useful to separate these changes, but given that
> the API will change in either case, it might be better to have one
> avalanche of a change rather than annoying users multiple times.
It is normally better to release more often. I would have released a
beta on Groovy 2.5 for example a long time ago, even without the module
part completed. And that is mainly because I have experienced dragged
out releases in the past before Groovy 1.0, and what negative effects
they have. But anyway... a change that breaks compatibility is
different. So I agree... but given the sparse resources, I am afraid it
would be too long too. Best would be to have a migration plan, do the
breaking changes in one release, but back that with old logic... if that
is possible.
bye Jochen
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Thibault Kruse <ti...@googlemail.com>.
Are Antlr 4 and Jva 8 syntax linked somethow, meaning is there a hard
problem describing certain java8 features using whatever antlr version
is used right now?
I would assume that porting Groovy to Java9 takes precendence over
changing the syntax, so it would be nice to have a roadmap that decide
which version will contain which of those changes. Given the scarce
resources it might be useful to separate these changes, but given that
the API will change in either case, it might be better to have one
avalanche of a change rather than annoying users multiple times.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you put the antlr v4 parser, you also mean the Java 8 constructs, I
> guess?
>
> Because otherwise, that's really my wish list too :-)
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 29.01.2016 18:05, Clark Richey wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> What do you think about having a page on the web site that
>>> provides at least basic information about the status of on-going Groovy
>>> development? This will serve the dual purpose of letting people know
>>> that Groovy development isn’t dead and heighten awareness of the current
>>> lack of support for full time development of the language.
>>
>>
>> I can make a wishlist like this:
>>
>> * integrate and complete antlr4 parser
>> * complete spec for and implement MOP 3
>> * add c# inspired asnyc/await to Groovy and see if tight integration with
>> gpars is possible
>> * new joint compiler
>> * JSR 269 support
>> * java9 jigsaw support
>> * complete macro system
>> ...
>>
>> is that what you wanted?
>>
>> bye Jochen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Laforge
> Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Social: @glaforge / Google+
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
As a side note, I'd like to conclude the decision about what to do with
regards to backwards compatibility in "next major groovy version", in
particular the decision about how to organize modules for jigsaw. I will
dig into my archives and revive the discussion :-)
Le 30 janv. 2016 10:18, "Jochen Theodorou" <bl...@gmx.org> a écrit :
> yes
>
> On 30.01.2016 09:31, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>
>> When you put the antlr v4 parser, you also mean the Java 8 constructs, I
>> guess?
>>
>> Because otherwise, that's really my wish list too :-)
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org
>> <ma...@gmx.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On 29.01.2016 18:05, Clark Richey wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> What do you think about having a page on the web site that
>> provides at least basic information about the status of on-going
>> Groovy
>> development? This will serve the dual purpose of letting people
>> know
>> that Groovy development isn’t dead and heighten awareness of the
>> current
>> lack of support for full time development of the language.
>>
>>
>> I can make a wishlist like this:
>>
>> * integrate and complete antlr4 parser
>> * complete spec for and implement MOP 3
>> * add c# inspired asnyc/await to Groovy and see if tight integration
>> with gpars is possible
>> * new joint compiler
>> * JSR 269 support
>> * java9 jigsaw support
>> * complete macro system
>> ...
>>
>> is that what you wanted?
>>
>> bye Jochen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Guillaume Laforge
>> Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
>> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
>>
>> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
>> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
>> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
>>
>
>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
yes
On 30.01.2016 09:31, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> When you put the antlr v4 parser, you also mean the Java 8 constructs, I
> guess?
>
> Because otherwise, that's really my wish list too :-)
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org
> <ma...@gmx.org>> wrote:
>
> On 29.01.2016 18:05, Clark Richey wrote:
> [...]
>
> What do you think about having a page on the web site that
> provides at least basic information about the status of on-going
> Groovy
> development? This will serve the dual purpose of letting people
> know
> that Groovy development isn’t dead and heighten awareness of the
> current
> lack of support for full time development of the language.
>
>
> I can make a wishlist like this:
>
> * integrate and complete antlr4 parser
> * complete spec for and implement MOP 3
> * add c# inspired asnyc/await to Groovy and see if tight integration
> with gpars is possible
> * new joint compiler
> * JSR 269 support
> * java9 jigsaw support
> * complete macro system
> ...
>
> is that what you wanted?
>
> bye Jochen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Laforge
> Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
When you put the antlr v4 parser, you also mean the Java 8 constructs, I
guess?
Because otherwise, that's really my wish list too :-)
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
> On 29.01.2016 18:05, Clark Richey wrote:
> [...]
>
>> What do you think about having a page on the web site that
>> provides at least basic information about the status of on-going Groovy
>> development? This will serve the dual purpose of letting people know
>> that Groovy development isn’t dead and heighten awareness of the current
>> lack of support for full time development of the language.
>>
>
> I can make a wishlist like this:
>
> * integrate and complete antlr4 parser
> * complete spec for and implement MOP 3
> * add c# inspired asnyc/await to Groovy and see if tight integration with
> gpars is possible
> * new joint compiler
> * JSR 269 support
> * java9 jigsaw support
> * complete macro system
> ...
>
> is that what you wanted?
>
> bye Jochen
>
>
>
>
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
As one of the people who helped Groovy with the incubation, I don't see such
statement as anything even vaguely resembling the situation. What I see is a
tremendous growth in the community, project popularity, and very active
development. Considering that this "simple explanation" doesn't seem to be
shared by the community at large, it shouldn't belong to anything but the
hearsay quarters.
Cos
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 08:29AM, Clark Richey wrote:
> I think having that on the site would be great. I think you should also add
> the simple explanation you provided in this thread as to why development has
> slowed.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
>
> --
> Clark Richey
> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
> 240.252.7507
> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>
> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
> affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
> contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
> confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
> copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
> believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
> message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
> On Jan 30, 2016, at 03:16, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 29.01.2016 18:05, Clark Richey wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> What do you think about having a page on the web site that
> >> provides at least basic information about the status of on-going Groovy
> >> development? This will serve the dual purpose of letting people know
> >> that Groovy development isn’t dead and heighten awareness of the current
> >> lack of support for full time development of the language.
> >
> > I can make a wishlist like this:
> >
> > * integrate and complete antlr4 parser
> > * complete spec for and implement MOP 3
> > * add c# inspired asnyc/await to Groovy and see if tight integration with gpars is possible
> > * new joint compiler
> > * JSR 269 support
> > * java9 jigsaw support
> > * complete macro system
> > ...
> >
> > is that what you wanted?
> >
> > bye Jochen
> >
> >
> >
> >
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com>.
Fair enough
Sent from my iPhone
>
--
Clark Richey
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
240.252.7507
CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
WWW.FACTGEM.COM
This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
On Jan 30, 2016, at 13:01, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't include any comment on a slow down.
> I'd see a comment like that on any OSS project page, I'd shy away from using it.
> If you look at the commit logs, there are very regular commits.
> We just don't work on huge / big news-worthy features right now, but it's still significant effort towards bug fixing and stabilization, which is also very important.
> So saying the project slowed down (or that it lost some full-time committers), isn't a good idea IMHO.
> I've never seen that on any OSS project page anywhere.
>
> Guillaume
>
>
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> wrote:
>> I think having that on the site would be great. I think you should also add the simple explanation you provided in this thread as to why development has slowed.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> <pic-0.png>
>> Clark Richey
>> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
>>
>> 240.252.7507
>> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
>> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2016, at 03:16, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 29.01.2016 18:05, Clark Richey wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> What do you think about having a page on the web site that
>> >> provides at least basic information about the status of on-going Groovy
>> >> development? This will serve the dual purpose of letting people know
>> >> that Groovy development isn’t dead and heighten awareness of the current
>> >> lack of support for full time development of the language.
>> >
>> > I can make a wishlist like this:
>> >
>> > * integrate and complete antlr4 parser
>> > * complete spec for and implement MOP 3
>> > * add c# inspired asnyc/await to Groovy and see if tight integration with gpars is possible
>> > * new joint compiler
>> > * JSR 269 support
>> > * java9 jigsaw support
>> > * complete macro system
>> > ...
>> >
>> > is that what you wanted?
>> >
>> > bye Jochen
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Laforge
> Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Social: @glaforge / Google+
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
I wouldn't include any comment on a slow down.
I'd see a comment like that on any OSS project page, I'd shy away from
using it.
If you look at the commit logs, there are very regular commits.
We just don't work on huge / big news-worthy features right now, but it's
still significant effort towards bug fixing and stabilization, which is
also very important.
So saying the project slowed down (or that it lost some full-time
committers), isn't a good idea IMHO.
I've never seen that on any OSS project page anywhere.
Guillaume
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> wrote:
> I think having that on the site would be great. I think you should also
> add the simple explanation you provided in this thread as to why
> development has slowed.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
>
>
> <#1178243858_>
>
> Clark Richey
>
> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
> 240.252.7507
> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
> affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
> contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
> confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
> copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
> believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
> message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2016, at 03:16, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 29.01.2016 18:05, Clark Richey wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> What do you think about having a page on the web site that
> >> provides at least basic information about the status of on-going Groovy
> >> development? This will serve the dual purpose of letting people know
> >> that Groovy development isn’t dead and heighten awareness of the current
> >> lack of support for full time development of the language.
> >
> > I can make a wishlist like this:
> >
> > * integrate and complete antlr4 parser
> > * complete spec for and implement MOP 3
> > * add c# inspired asnyc/await to Groovy and see if tight integration
> with gpars is possible
> > * new joint compiler
> > * JSR 269 support
> > * java9 jigsaw support
> > * complete macro system
> > ...
> >
> > is that what you wanted?
> >
> > bye Jochen
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com>.
I think having that on the site would be great. I think you should also add the simple explanation you provided in this thread as to why development has slowed.
Sent from my iPhone
>
--
Clark Richey
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
240.252.7507
CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
WWW.FACTGEM.COM
This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
On Jan 30, 2016, at 03:16, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
>
>> On 29.01.2016 18:05, Clark Richey wrote:
>> [...]
>> What do you think about having a page on the web site that
>> provides at least basic information about the status of on-going Groovy
>> development? This will serve the dual purpose of letting people know
>> that Groovy development isn’t dead and heighten awareness of the current
>> lack of support for full time development of the language.
>
> I can make a wishlist like this:
>
> * integrate and complete antlr4 parser
> * complete spec for and implement MOP 3
> * add c# inspired asnyc/await to Groovy and see if tight integration with gpars is possible
> * new joint compiler
> * JSR 269 support
> * java9 jigsaw support
> * complete macro system
> ...
>
> is that what you wanted?
>
> bye Jochen
>
>
>
>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
On 29.01.2016 18:05, Clark Richey wrote:
[...]
> What do you think about having a page on the web site that
> provides at least basic information about the status of on-going Groovy
> development? This will serve the dual purpose of letting people know
> that Groovy development isn’t dead and heighten awareness of the current
> lack of support for full time development of the language.
I can make a wishlist like this:
* integrate and complete antlr4 parser
* complete spec for and implement MOP 3
* add c# inspired asnyc/await to Groovy and see if tight integration
with gpars is possible
* new joint compiler
* JSR 269 support
* java9 jigsaw support
* complete macro system
...
is that what you wanted?
bye Jochen
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com>.
That’s a good point. Now that you mention it I remember reading about it. I feel like the majority of the Groovy user community really isn’t aware of this issue. While I realize that very very companies are in a position to sponsor people for full-time Groovy development positions, increasing community awareness will at least increase that possibility. It may also increase the number of people that will spend their time contributing. What do you think about having a page on the web site that provides at least basic information about the status of on-going Groovy development? This will serve the dual purpose of letting people know that Groovy development isn’t dead and heighten awareness of the current lack of support for full time development of the language.
---
Clark D. Richey, Jr
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
240.252.7507
CLARK@FACTGEM.COM <ma...@FACTGEM.COM>
WWW.FACTGEM.COM <http://www.factgem.com/>
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 9:07 PM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29.01.2016 00:09, Clark Richey wrote:
>> Understood. My concern, and I believe it mirrors a concern held by
>> others, is that on the surface with no indications of beta releases,
>> road maps or any current development activity it looks like Groovy
>> development stalled when Codehaus dropped its support.
>
> just to clear up here something.. Codehaus has nothing to do with it. It was only a coincidence that codehaus ended at the same time. It was EMC/VMWare/Pivotal that dropped support for Groovy as part of a culling of the Spring team, just like VMWare did for most of VMWare Fusion and Workstation teams just recently. We (Guillaume, Cedric and myself) failed to get a new sponsor for fulltime jobs to work on Groovy, so each of us had to look for a new job, meaning less time for Groovy.
>
> So naturally Groovy development will be slowed a lot unless others take the chance to shine. And I have seen some very good pull requests in even difficult parts of Groovy.
>
> As for Groovy 3.... of course all the plans did depend on me not doing all the work alone, and having a fulltime job for work on Groovy. Both conditions seem not to be met anymore, thus I am unsure as of even how to tackle the problem. I did have some thoughts about that of course: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.ch/2015/03/thoughts-about-new-meta-class-system.html
>
> bye Jochen
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
On 29.01.2016 00:09, Clark Richey wrote:
> Understood. My concern, and I believe it mirrors a concern held by
> others, is that on the surface with no indications of beta releases,
> road maps or any current development activity it looks like Groovy
> development stalled when Codehaus dropped its support.
just to clear up here something.. Codehaus has nothing to do with it. It
was only a coincidence that codehaus ended at the same time. It was
EMC/VMWare/Pivotal that dropped support for Groovy as part of a culling
of the Spring team, just like VMWare did for most of VMWare Fusion and
Workstation teams just recently. We (Guillaume, Cedric and myself)
failed to get a new sponsor for fulltime jobs to work on Groovy, so each
of us had to look for a new job, meaning less time for Groovy.
So naturally Groovy development will be slowed a lot unless others take
the chance to shine. And I have seen some very good pull requests in
even difficult parts of Groovy.
As for Groovy 3.... of course all the plans did depend on me not doing
all the work alone, and having a fulltime job for work on Groovy. Both
conditions seem not to be met anymore, thus I am unsure as of even how
to tackle the problem. I did have some thoughts about that of course:
http://blackdragsview.blogspot.ch/2015/03/thoughts-about-new-meta-class-system.html
bye Jochen
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com>.
Understood. My concern, and I believe it mirrors a concern held by others, is that on the surface with no indications of beta releases, road maps or any current development activity it looks like Groovy development stalled when Codehaus dropped its support.
I agree that you don't want an unrealistic roadmap but right now when people google for Groovy 3.0 all they find are very old articles that talk about t possible being released in 2014 or so.
I'm a big fan of groovy and I just don't want to see people back away from it because they are afraid that with the improvements in Java 8 and soon(ish) Java 9 that Groovy is a thing of the past.
Sent from my iPhone
>
--
Clark Richey
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
240.252.7507
CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
WWW.FACTGEM.COM
This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
On Jan 28, 2016, at 16:06, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
> Yes, we spoke about putting back some kind of roadmap page that was in the old website (and I have an action to make some progress in that regard). But we didn't want to make the roadmap unrealistic either, so we want to get the wording right.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> wrote:
>> Thanks. I just haven't been able to find much information in development status since the website changes occurred and I was vaguely concerned.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> <pic-0.png>
>> Clark Richey
>> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
>>
>> 240.252.7507
>> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
>> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 14:56, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> We are still working on getting 2.5 out the door. Only a little bit of experimental/spike work has gone in regards to 3.0 .
>>>
>>> Cheers, Paul.
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi! Does anyone have any information on the status of Groovy 3.0? Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <pic-0.png>
>>>> Clark Richey
>>>> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
>>>>
>>>> 240.252.7507
>>>> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
>>>> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
Yes, we spoke about putting back some kind of roadmap page that was in the
old website (and I have an action to make some progress in that regard).
But we didn't want to make the roadmap unrealistic either, so we want to
get the wording right.
Cheers, Paul.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> wrote:
> Thanks. I just haven't been able to find much information in development
> status since the website changes occurred and I was vaguely concerned.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> <#-1730537106_>
>
> Clark Richey
>
> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
> 240.252.7507
> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
> affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
> contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
> confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
> copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
> believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
> message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
>
>
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 14:56, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
> We are still working on getting 2.5 out the door. Only a little bit of
> experimental/spike work has gone in regards to 3.0 .
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi! Does anyone have any information on the status of Groovy 3.0? Thanks!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> <pic-0.png> <#-1730537106_-410294724_>
>>
>> Clark Richey
>>
>> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
>> 240.252.7507
>> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
>> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
>> affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
>> contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
>> confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
>> copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
>> may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
>> believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
>> message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
>>
>>
>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com>.
Thanks. I just haven't been able to find much information in development status since the website changes occurred and I was vaguely concerned.
Sent from my iPhone
>
--
Clark Richey
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
240.252.7507
CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
WWW.FACTGEM.COM
This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
On Jan 28, 2016, at 14:56, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
> We are still working on getting 2.5 out the door. Only a little bit of experimental/spike work has gone in regards to 3.0 .
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> wrote:
>> Hi! Does anyone have any information on the status of Groovy 3.0? Thanks!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> <pic-0.png>
>> Clark Richey
>> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
>>
>> 240.252.7507
>> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
>> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
>
Re: Groovy 3.0
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
We are still working on getting 2.5 out the door. Only a little bit of
experimental/spike work has gone in regards to 3.0 .
Cheers, Paul.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Clark Richey <cl...@factgem.com> wrote:
> Hi! Does anyone have any information on the status of Groovy 3.0? Thanks!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> <#-410294724_>
>
> Clark Richey
>
> CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
> 240.252.7507
> CLARK@FACTGEM.COM
> WWW.FACTGEM.COM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any included attachments are property of FactGem and its
> affiliates, and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information
> contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise
> confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
> copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
> believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this
> message and notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you.
>
>