| Dmitry is correct that technically deciding a namespace that has to be used by all specification/tck projects typically would be the domain of the specification committee, especially if another project is questioning "how can you tell our project what to do."
It would probably be smart to have the results of the vote approved by the spec committee in some way and the resulting guideline owned there.
So far I don't think this discussion has been about mandating a rename of existing TCKs. For sure not for Jakarta 10. I'm not sure anyone will ever have the time to really rename all the existing TCKs and there is no real strong benefit in doing so. We were only trying to pick a name for new TCK efforts and it was surfaced by some that TCKs with jakarta.* packages contained in applications would be a problem. I do think this whole discussion could have been done in the TCK project itself though. I don't think it has to go to the specification committee for the TCK project to pick its own package name as long as the project owns the package name. Otherwise we would have had to have a spec committee decision for each and every package added to the TCK.
I suppose if we were mandating a package rename that would have to be mandated by the specification committee to put some authority over the jakarta projects.
Tom
----- Original message -----
From: "Dmitry Kornilov" <dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: "jakartaee-platform-dev" <jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "jakartaee-platform developer discussions" <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [External] : Re: Jakarta TCK package naming convention
Date: Mon, Jan 10, 2022 4:04 PM
I’m lost in this conversation and surprised that we are jumping to voting so fast. I couldn’t find the driver for this change. I believe that less renaming is better for the platform. Renaming and especially renaming in TCKs is a big task. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
I’m lost in this conversation and surprised that we are jumping to voting so fast. I couldn’t find the driver for this change. I believe that less renaming is better for the platform. Renaming and especially renaming in TCKs is a big task. Who is going to do this? I am not ready to assign people to it. Last time we changed names for Maven artifacts we introduced the package split problems we still suffering with. So, if you ask me -> NO RENAMING! -- Dmitry P.S. Also, I don’t think that it’s up to the platform group to make this decision. TCKs are a part of specifications, so it must go through the spec committee to get approved.
Done. I thought from the conversation thread, the package name of org.jakartatck.* might have some complications. Anyway, I have added.
Can we add the org.jakartatck option to this?
Having trouble viewing or submitting this form? | | | | | | |
| | I've invited you to fill out a form: | | | | | | | For all new Jakarta TCKs, we need a naming convention. All TCKs for Jakarta EE 10, the requirement is not to use jakarta.*. From Jakarta EE 11, the naming convention must be used. | | | The new Jakarta EE TCKs from Jakarta EE 11 must use the following naming convention. Pick your choice below. -
- ( ) ee.jakarta.tck.[spec]
- ( ) tck.jakarta.[spec]
- ( ) org.eclipse.jakarta.tck.[spec]
| | |
--
--
_______________________________________________ jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
|
