Move modules into separate projects

[igr]

Should we separate Jodd tools into separate projects:

• core
• http
• json
• email

and let them have their own lifecycle and versioning?

@neroux @slandelle @moh-sushi

[neroux]

This somewhat brings us back to #388 and #570. Is there a particular reason why you'd like to address this possibility now once more? Are there issues with the way it is currently packaged?

[moh-sushi]

What is the origin of this issue, @igr ?
Why did you create this issue?

With no further information, I see it the way @neroux does.

[moh-sushi]

Further question:
Why do you only want to separate these libraries?
What about Lagarto or (mini framework) Madvoc?

[igr]

What happened is that there is a contribution: Android version of Jodd-Http client. It would be cool if things like that stays together - in the same repo. Jodd repo would then just consist of git modules, for example.

I would not split everything, just tools. Frameworks maybe not. I dunno.

I would probably do that before, but never had time to invest in this...

[neroux]

What happened is that there is a contribution: Android version of Jodd-Http client.

What do you mean by that? How is that different from now? AFAIK your focus was on Java 8+ and its tricky to get that running on Android.

It would be cool if things like that stays together - in the same repo.

Well, one of the benefits of Jodd IMHO is it is a compact library which offers a lot in a single JAR file. Splitting that up would negate that, and I still cant get what the benefit of it should be.

[igr]

What do you mean by that? How is that different from now? AFAIK your focus was on Java 8+ and its tricky to get that running on Android.

It was, but someone actually ported it :)

[neroux]

It was, but someone actually ported it :)

What did he port? I am using a version of it before the Java 8 migration on Android too :)

I am still a bit in the dark as to the reason why Jodd should be split though.

[igr]

One question @neroux - do you really see the value in having one jar? I mean, with e.g. jodd-joy you can get the all the dependencies easily, so basically you dont need to think about that.

This is the port: https://github.com/mtsoleimani/jodd-http-android

[neroux]

Personally, I do. I do my dependency "management" myself and add the necessary jar files manually. That's what always stood out for me when it comes to Jodd, quite a few libraries in one single small jar file.

As for the port, without a commit history it is difficult to tell what they changed, but when I adapted it for Android there wasn't that much to do, it was mostly the certificate validation. Admittedly, it was based on a previous code base, before the switch to Java 1.8.

[neroux]

But I guess if it is split into different libraries but still has an all-in-one package it shouldn't be that much of an issue and Jodd would still live up to its slogan :)

[igr]

But I guess if it is split into different libraries but still has an all-in-one package it shouldn't be that much of an issue and Jodd would still live up to its slogan :)

That is true, I would not remove this :) The only difference is that the version of bundle jar would be a datestamp.

[neroux]

I guess everything should be fine then :)

My concern was Jodd would be split up into dozens of small libraries and you'd need to include each file separately. If you plan to keep the all-in-one library untouched in this regard, it shouldnt matter if the individual packages are all part of one project or scattered around.

Only my two cents :)

[igr]

If you plan to keep the all-in-one library untouched in this regard

Yeah, this was never a question - the bundle would be there :)

[moh-sushi]

What about this case:

jodd-json : version 6.2.3 (with dep to jodd-core 5.3.9)
jodd-mail : version 5.4.5 (with dep to jodd-core 5.4.6)

The version of these libs may differ due to own versioning.
jodd-json and jodd-mail have dependencies to jodd-core.

if you add jodd-json and jodd-mail with its current version (see above) into the pom.xml there may be two different jodd-core jars (due to different versions) in the classpath.

correct?

[restmad]

this is not a good idea. you will spend more time on every project and deal with all kinds of dependency.

[neroux]

You certainly open up Pandora's box of versioning if you split it, but thats a (somewhat) logical conclusion in that case.

[igr]

[igr]

This is so I don't think about it ever again :)

[neroux]

This is so I don't think about it ever again :)

I am seriously considering of adding https://github.com/oblac/ to every single blocking list out there I could think of 😆

Igor, you do realise, the next time you suggest Jodd should be split I'll be longterm renting a digital billboard across from your very apartment and will have that animation played 24/7 😈

[igr]

Hahahaa, that would be a party !!!!!!
They say visual cues are the best, so I tried :)))

[neroux]

That cue is a sledgehammer though 😆