Add first-class support for Typelevel and other toolkits

[armanbilge]

Closes #2018

[tgodzik]

Looks good! I will wait a bit to gather some more opinions since toolkit is not officially out yet. You're too fast! :D

[bishabosha]

I wonder if leaving this feature "open" might lead to a rush to make many "toolkits" just to have an easier import for a project, when perhaps the more general solution would be a flexible way to declare dependencies without versions (and possibly organisations?) and let Scala CLI figure out the conflicts.

I know dependencies can be declared with latest.release or latest.stable as the version, but I don't know if that handles conflicts at all

[tgodzik]

I wonder if leaving this feature "open" might lead to a rush to make many "toolkits" just to have an easier import for a project, when perhaps the more general solution would be a flexible way to declare dependencies without versions (and possibly organisations?) and let Scala CLI figure out the conflicts.

I don't think there would be a lot of people willing to invest here, but I understand the concern. Anyone else feels this might become problematic?

I know dependencies can be declared with latest.release or latest.stable as the version, but I don't know if that handles conflicts at all

I think it should handle the conflicts just as normal.

[TonioGela]

I don't think there would be a lot of people willing to invest here, but I understand the concern. Anyone else feels this might become problematic?

Also, after the development of the toolkit itself, the investment to make it automatically supported consists of just adding a new case in a pattern match. I don't think that's a lot to pay.

[lefou]

I wonder whether support for "toolkit" is a special thing in general. Couldn't it be a simple pom dependency, which transitively depends on all the artifacts that make up a "toolkit"? (If this was discussed before, can you please provide a link to it?)

[bishabosha]

I wonder whether support for "toolkit" is a special thing in general. Couldn't it be a simple pom dependency, which transitively depends on all the artifacts that make up a "toolkit"? (If this was discussed before, can you please provide a link to it?)

Yeah the current implementation is syntax sugar for adding a dependency to <organisation>::toolkit::<version>

[TonioGela]

Yeah the current implementation is syntax sugar for adding a dependency to <organisation>::toolkit::<version>

Plus, the implementation of the TL toolkit is exactly what you described: a metalib that depends on the libraries you want to include in it. See https://github.com/typelevel/toolkit/blob/main/build.sbt#L16.

[SethTisue]

Anyone else feels this might become problematic?

in short, no. and even if somebody did overdo it, 🤷, hard to see any real harm in it

[tgodzik]

I don't see any objections to merging this, thanks @armanbilge !