Hi Dennis,
Certainly an option, I have finally picked up the JIRA to work on that. The
reason I lean towards
a bit shorter cxf.xxx is that using package names is more verbose and
'org.apache' prefix does not
really bring much meaning. Here is a bit old but relevant email thread on this
subject
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2017-February/000582.html
Some projects like Spring f.e. followed the spring.xxx module names convention
while others
like Hibernate Validator f.e. uses full package name, like
org.hibernate.validator. It is up
to us to decide what we think is best option for CXF. I think the sample usage
scenarios
would help us to make the right decisions (coming soon).
Thanks!
Best Regards,
Andriy Redko
DK> Hi Andriy!
>> Haven't started work on automatic module names yet, my bad. But we certainly
>> could do that for
>> the plugin, the only thing we need to do is to agree on naming convention to
>> follow. Like f.e.,
>> just to throw some ideas: cxf.xjc, cxf.core, cxf.cdi, cxf.opentracing,
>> cxf.clustering, cxf.jaxrs.client,
>> cxf.jaxrs.frontend, ... What do you think, guys?
DK> Shouldn't we prefix it with org.apache, e.g. org.apache.cxf.xjc,
org.apache.cxf.core, ...?
DK> Regards
DK> Dennis
