groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <>
Subject Re: Integrating Groovy with a Java EE application and Maven
Date Tue, 21 Jun 2016 20:39:13 GMT
On 21.06.2016 09:04, Mr Andersson wrote:
> Gmaven or Gmaven 2 did not work for me either. Resulted in a bunch of
> compilation issues which I started to correct, but then gave up on. I
> shouldn't have to change my code to get on Groovy.

yeah, forget about those... gmavenplus is supposed to work. If that one 
does not do the job, then there is a problem

> Plus have you seen the size of this examples page?
> Fifty ways to configure. I don't even know anything about what I need
> when i start off, so that's just too much headache.

you wanted joint compilation, so go to and 
hopefully be done.

> The ant task for me is good enough.

well, then everything is almost fine ;)

>> command line is even more simple ;)
> Not easy to integrate a command line argument for maven it seems. I am
> not sure how you can add that to the classpath. I was trying really hard
> on that but could not find any info, like with everything involving
> searching for Java issues. Google sucks at this, or the Java folks
> seriously do not ask or think enough about doing things the right way.

I think the maven structure is not really made for executing command 
line commands... you could always use the ant runner to do that kind of 
thing of course, but then why use maven at all.

>>> In constract, pulling in Scala and Kotlin ( during the process which I
>>> gave up on Groovy ) took seconds.
>> well, there are some maven people, here only very few
> Groovy has been alive for over 10 years. It has to be a couple of people
> wanting to integrate Groovy in a JEE environment by now.

maven works best if you follow the maven conventions and the very few 
maven projects I had to do with really tried to follow that.

> And I doubting the procedure is different for gradle.

give it a try. But it has its quirks too as well of course. For example 
if you have files in src/main/java and in src/main/groovy, the groovy 
plugin will not do joint compilation for the files in src/main/java. You 
can easily change that by = []
sourceSets.main.groovy.srcDirs += ["src/main/java"]

or use a totally different folder.... or multiple folders. ant is more 
direct in that you will always have to supply that information anyway. 
if that is more easy or not, I donĀ“t know. But I have seen some pretty 
complex builds and most of them I really would not like to do with ant I 
must say.

>>> Relying on the Eclipse compiler is not a good thing as it has a history
>>> of breaking and not being up to date with any other compiler that one
>>> might wish to use.
>> Which is why the page suggests gmavenplus for maven... maybe that
>> should be more clear
> Did not work with both. The ant task should be the one mentioned because
> it will always succeed, unless you can figure how to add it to the
> classpath.

Most important is that you got something working. Granted, it took too 
long and longer than it should have, and that is the fault of our 
documentation. Which brings me to the point of asking you what you would 
suggest how we should change our documentation so the next one will not 
have to do so much fighting.

> I am not sure what it means that you always compile all files. I haven't
> tried it enough but besides a 15 seconds extra build time, i don't see
> much difference in repetition.

It means, that if you change one class, you will compile all of them and 
live with the build overhead. If you have several hundred files to 
compile, this will add up during development and testing.

>> compared with eclipse groovy plugin:
>> * stubs cannot compile as many scenarios as the integrated approach of
>> the eclipse groovy compiler
>> * not really integrated in maven, thus you always compile all files
>> I am working on a new compiler tool for Groovy, which is supposed to
>> have less of those disadvantages, for which I will then also look for
>> more proper maven integration (I am hoping here on the help of gmaven
>> plus). But that is still in the future and no fast project, because my
>> free time is limited
> It should be simple, one plugin declaration with all configuration right
> there, and work.

agreed.. though will only if you follow the conventions for maven, 
because any different way will require additional configuration.. but I 
guess that is clear already

bye Jochen

View raw message