Re: [ee4j-pmc] module names

[Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill et al,

I think option 1 is probably the best of a difficult situation as it is at least a path towards uniform naming.

Use of java.* for javax packages is just going to be confusing.

Use of a new name space such as jakarta.*  with aggregations to any existing names is least confusing for both those that care to look and to those that are using the existing names, but don't look.

regards

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 06:55, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I sure would like to hear from more PMC members and Project Leads.
If you have no opinion or don't care, please let me know that too.

Thanks.

Bill Shannon wrote on 10/02/2018 03:24 PM:
> The Java trademark license we're working on will allow the future
> evolution of Java EE specifications using the javax package namespace,
> with some limitations.  It may also need to define the use of the new
> module namespace.
>
> The "Java EE" specifications that were included in Java SE 9 had
> java.* module names defined for them.  The implementations of some
> other Java EE specifications have started using java.* module names,
> even though such names are not yet defined by any specification.
>
> It seems likely that future versions of these specifications that are
> defined through the Jakarta EE specification process will define the
> module names to be used by these specifications.  I don't expect these
> updated specifications to be approved until some time after the Java
> trademark license is complete.  Unfortunately, that means we may need
> to agree on module names to be included in the Java trademark license
> without the help of a formal specification process, depending on which
> approach we take.
>
> There's several approaches I can see for defining module names for
> Jakarta EE specifications:
>
> 1. Use jakarta.* for all Jakarta EE module names.  This is consistent
>    with the use of Maven groupIds.  To avoid breaking compatibility for
>    any applications using the existing module names defined by Java SE
>    we would need to create aggregator modules to allow these modules to
>    be available with both the java.* and jakarta.* module names, e.g.,
>    "module java.transaction { requires transitive jakarta.transaction; }"
>
> 2. Use jakarta.* for all Jakarta EE module names except for those
>    modules already defined by Java SE.  This preserves compatibility
>    with the Java SE modules without the need for aggregator modules,
>    but results in an inconsistent module namespace.
>
> 3. Use java.* for all Jakarta EE module names for existing Java EE
>    specifications (those licensed to use the javax.* package namespace).
>    This will result in some future specifications using different module
>    names (as well as package names).  This would require us to decide
>    on the java.* module names to include in the Java trademark license.
>
> Which would the PMC and Project Leads prefer?
> _______________________________________________
> ee4j-pmc mailing list
> ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
>
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc

--

Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> CTO http://webtide.com