Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] JAXB restructuring

[Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Wayne Beaton wrote on 5/28/19 2:16 PM:
> "xml-binding" feels too wordy to me for a short name, but it would work. Did
> we consider "xmlb"?
If we're running out of letters, that would be ok.  I just don't think we need
to restrict ourselves to Fortran identifiers.

> It's common that the short name is used in Java package names (e.g. the
> Eclipse EGit Project has short name "egit" and Java packages
> "org.eclipse.egit.*"). I'm not adding this as a requirement, but rather am
> adding it to provide a bit more information about how we traditionally use
> short names.
Exactly.  jakarta.xml.bind.

> To constraint as I understand it is to avoid names and acronyms that conflict
> with Oracle's stable of registered and common-law trademarks. While I can
> appreciate a desire to avoid potential confusion with JCP acronyms, I believe
> that it is unreasonable to take "J" off the table.
I think we're looking for a consistent approach for all the specs so we
shouldn't look at any one in isolation.  There may be cases where "J" works
without conflict or confusion, but applying the same approach across all specs
may run into problems.

There are certainly cases such as "EE4J" where the use of "J" is fine.