30 Apr
2007
30 Apr
'07
8:08 p.m.
Quite some time ago I asked whether there are plans to upgrade the
included version of Groovy from JSR-06 to the 1.0 release.
I never got an answer, and I see that no version change occurrred in the
last release candidate.
Is Groovy used in a standard installation and can I replace the
corresponding jar myself without breaking anything?
Thanks
Michael
30 Apr
30 Apr
8:18 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-users] Groovy version
Hi Michael,
On Apr 30, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Michael Baehr wrote:
Quite some time ago I asked whether there are plans to
upgrade the
included version of Groovy from JSR-06 to the 1.0 release.
I never got an answer, and I see that no version change occurrred
in the last release candidate.
Is Groovy used in a standard installation and can I replace the
corresponding jar myself without breaking anything?
The general answer is "yes we would like to use it". I think the
reason we haven't migrated yet is because we were worried it would
break something and we wanted to release 1.0 ASAP. But personally I
agree that we should have tried the upgrade earlier.
It's a bit late now to try the upgrade as we're in RC stages for the
1.0 release but we should definitely do it in early 1.1 releases.
I don't know if anything will break but it's very likely the core
will need to change to work with groovy 1.0. If others know more,
please chime in.
Thanks
-Vincent
1 May
1 May
2:33 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-users] Groovy version
Just an fyi; Groovy 1.1 is already in beta, so it could be 1.1 in the
near future.
Is it not possible to compile the xwiki core so that it looks for groovy
libraries in %GROOVY_HOME% first, and uses it's own if that fails?
I don't work much with Java, so I'm not sure if that's possible; if it
is then users would be able to upgrade groovy versions easily, or keep
consistant with xwiki officially supported versions at their own option.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Massol [mailto:vincent@massol.net]
Sent: 30 April 2007 19:19
To: xwiki-users(a)objectweb.org
Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Groovy version
Hi Michael,
On Apr 30, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Michael Baehr wrote:
Quite some time ago I asked whether there are plans to
upgrade the
included version of Groovy from JSR-06 to the 1.0 release.
I never got an answer, and I see that no version change occurrred in
the last release candidate.
Is Groovy used in a standard installation and can I replace the
corresponding jar myself without breaking anything?
The general answer is "yes we would like to use it". I think the reason
we haven't migrated yet is because we were worried it would break
something and we wanted to release 1.0 ASAP. But personally I agree that
we should have tried the upgrade earlier.
It's a bit late now to try the upgrade as we're in RC stages for the 1.0
release but we should definitely do it in early 1.1 releases.
I don't know if anything will break but it's very likely the core will
need to change to work with groovy 1.0. If others know more, please
chime in.
Thanks
-Vincent
2 May
2 May
4:10 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-users] Groovy version
A quick check replacing groovy-all-1.0-jsr06.jar with groovy-all-1.0.jar
shows 4 errors in GroovyTemplateEngine.
There seems to be a typo in the old Groovy version, naming a method
MetaClassRegistry.getIntance() (instead of getInstance() - note the
missing 's').
Renaming those methods makes XWiki compilable (at least in Eclipse), so
I don't think there would be a big problem to use the Groovy 1.0 release
- as long as there are no Groovy scripts somewhere that might break due
to changes in the Groovy language itself.
cya
Michael
Vincent Massol schrieb:
Hi Michael,
On Apr 30, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Michael Baehr wrote:
Quite some time ago I asked whether there are
plans to upgrade the
included version of Groovy from JSR-06 to the 1.0 release.
I never got an answer, and I see that no version change occurrred in
the last release candidate.
Is Groovy used in a standard installation and can I replace the
corresponding jar myself without breaking anything?
The general answer is "yes we would like to use it". I think the
reason we haven't migrated yet is because we were worried it would
break something and we wanted to release 1.0 ASAP. But personally I
agree that we should have tried the upgrade earlier.
It's a bit late now to try the upgrade as we're in RC stages for the
1.0 release but we should definitely do it in early 1.1 releases.
I don't know if anything will break but it's very likely the core will
need to change to work with groovy 1.0. If others know more, please
chime in.
Thanks
-Vincent
4:20 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-users] Groovy version
On May 2, 2007, at 4:10 PM, Michael Baehr wrote:
A quick check replacing groovy-all-1.0-jsr06.jar with
groovy-
all-1.0.jar shows 4 errors in GroovyTemplateEngine.
There seems to be a typo in the old Groovy version, naming a method
MetaClassRegistry.getIntance() (instead of getInstance() - note
the missing 's').
Renaming those methods makes XWiki compilable (at least in
Eclipse), so I don't think there would be a big problem to use the
Groovy 1.0 release - as long as there are no Groovy scripts
somewhere that might break due to changes in the Groovy language
itself.
AFAIR there might be some issues with the groovy cache and its
integration in XWiki. I think I heard Ludovic mention that a long
time ago but I don't know more.
-Vincent
Vincent Massol schrieb:
Hi Michael,
On Apr 30, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Michael Baehr wrote:
--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the xwiki-
users(a)objectweb.org mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:xwiki-users-unsubscribe@objectweb.org
For general help: mailto:sympa@objectweb.org?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/
wws Quite some time ago I asked whether there are
plans to upgrade
the included version of Groovy from JSR-06 to the 1.0 release.
I never got an answer, and I see that no version change occurrred
in the last release candidate.
Is Groovy used in a standard installation and can I replace the
corresponding jar myself without breaking anything?
The general answer is "yes we would like to use it". I think the
reason we haven't migrated yet is because we were worried it would
break something and we wanted to release 1.0 ASAP. But personally
I agree that we should have tried the upgrade earlier.
It's a bit late now to try the upgrade as we're in RC stages for
the 1.0 release but we should definitely do it in early 1.1 releases.
I don't know if anything will break but it's very likely the core
will need to change to work with groovy 1.0. If others know more,
please chime in.
Thanks
-Vincent
6348
days inactive
6349
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Esbach, Brandon -
Michael Baehr -
Vincent Massol