Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [jakarta.ee-spec] [jakartaee-spec-project-l

[Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>]

Then that is heading in the direction of the non-stated option D to remove all Automatic-Modue-Name headers. Doing no work around this issue for Jakarta EE 9 leaves the headers in a bit of a mess. It would seem that the simplest change timewise would be to mandate their removal.  I think we need to draft a voting resolution on 4 different options with the pros and cons of each and decide which route to take. I'll create a draft for comments.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:37 AM Lance Andersen <lance.andersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Kevin,

On Jul 22, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Agree, Lance.  That's why I don't want to push this into the Jakarta EE 9 schedule.  We may come up with what we think is the right answer, but until we really dive into the JPMS impact across the Jakarta EE board, we'll probably have to make changes later.  I would prefer to leave things as-is for Jakarta EE 9 -- except for maybe the four items we have identified as getting rid of the 'java' prefix.

This is why we held off adding automatic module names prior to the transition to Eclipse as we felt after some lengthy internal discussions that this should only be done once and given the transition, it was best to wait.

Scott, I would not add the manifest element without finalizing on a name.  The intent of this element was to ease the transition to the module world, but if the name is not going to be firmed up, i would wait as it adds not value and just causes extra churn to the developers.

Best

Lance