You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@velocity.apache.org by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> on 2016/12/09 12:09:48 UTC
Shaded artifacts velocity-engine-core:2.0-SNAPSHOT
Hi folks,
based on VELOCITY-878 I am confused why this shading approach has been
taken?
1. Commons Lang 3: I see no benefit in shading it at all, if you check
the shaded JAR, a huge amount of classes are shaded. Moreover, Commons
Lang is so popular that most projects will include it in their POM
anyway, resulting in duplication. At last, Velocity uses Maven after all
where dependency management is a snap.
2. Commons Collections: As far as I can see, ExtendedProperties have
been moved to Commons Configuration. ExtProperties has been added. Why
not remove old code completely? This is pefectly fine for a major release.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: Shaded artifacts velocity-engine-core:2.0-SNAPSHOT
Posted by Claude Brisson <cl...@renegat.net>.
It also means we have to get rid of the ResourceLoader base class, by
the way. I indented to only deprecate it in favor of ResourceLoader2,
but there is no way to keep it around.
Claude
On 09/12/2016 13:51, Claude Brisson wrote:
> On 09/12/2016 13:09, Michael Osipov wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> based on VELOCITY-878 I am confused why this shading approach has
>> been taken?
>>
>> 1. Commons Lang 3: I see no benefit in shading it at all, if you
>> check the shaded JAR, a huge amount of classes are shaded. Moreover,
>> Commons Lang is so popular that most projects will include it in
>> their POM anyway, resulting in duplication. At last, Velocity uses
>> Maven after all where dependency management is a snap.
>
> I agree. I hadn't realized that there were so many shared classes,
> otherwise I would have questioned this shading far sooner.
>
>> 2. Commons Collections: As far as I can see, ExtendedProperties have
>> been moved to Commons Configuration. ExtProperties has been added.
>> Why not remove old code completely? This is pefectly fine for a major
>> release.
>
> Exactly, that's what I'm saying in my other mail...
>
> Claude
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: Shaded artifacts velocity-engine-core:2.0-SNAPSHOT
Posted by Claude Brisson <cl...@renegat.net>.
On 09/12/2016 13:09, Michael Osipov wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> based on VELOCITY-878 I am confused why this shading approach has been
> taken?
>
> 1. Commons Lang 3: I see no benefit in shading it at all, if you check
> the shaded JAR, a huge amount of classes are shaded. Moreover, Commons
> Lang is so popular that most projects will include it in their POM
> anyway, resulting in duplication. At last, Velocity uses Maven after
> all where dependency management is a snap.
I agree. I hadn't realized that there were so many shared classes,
otherwise I would have questioned this shading far sooner.
> 2. Commons Collections: As far as I can see, ExtendedProperties have
> been moved to Commons Configuration. ExtProperties has been added. Why
> not remove old code completely? This is pefectly fine for a major
> release.
Exactly, that's what I'm saying in my other mail...
Claude
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org