Hi Andriy, Thanks for your work.
I just believe the most important part of the module name is the uniqueness, and the root package name can give us the uniqueness naturally, as different modules shouldn’t have same root package names. Please take a look at this blog[1] which compared two name conventions and why we should use root package name and IMO every project should follow this common rule, which is less error-prone. [1]http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html －－－－－－－－－－－－－ Freeman(Yue) Fang Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > On May 23, 2018, at 7:12 PM, Andriy Redko <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >
