[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6945?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16294364#comment-16294364
]
Stephen Colebourne commented on DERBY-6945:
-------------------------------------------
Bear in mind that each package must be in exactly one module. It is this fact
that the standard naming strategy aims to tackle. In technical terms, you can
name your modules anything you like below `org.apache.derby`, however if those
names do not relate to packages then you may run into difficulty later with
package name clashes.
If client is your most important jar, you might want to consider using the
module name `org.apache.derby`, which is the common super-package of
`org.apache.derby.client` and `org.apache.derby.jdbc`. Or you may want to split
that jar file into two jar files.
I would not suggest renaming public API packages just for modules BTW.
> Re-package Derby as a collection of jigsaw modules
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6945
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6945
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 10.13.1.2
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Attachments: derby-6945-01-aa-remove_derbyPreBuild_dep.diff,
> derby-6945-02-ab-newDerbySharedJar.diff, jdeps.out.tar
>
>
> Once we commit to building with Java 9 (see DERBY-6856), we should consider
> re-packaging Derby as a set of jigsaw modules. This would result in a
> different set of release artifacts. This might be a good opportunity to
> address the Tomcat artifactory issues raised by issue DERBY-6944.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
