Github user afs commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/401
What is the issue here? Does anything break?
oaj = org.apache.jena
> the module system does not allow two distinct modules (e.g.
org.apache.jena.arq and org.apache.jena.base) to export the same package (e.g.
org.apache.jena.atlas).
jena-arq does not contain any classes of `oaj.atlas` so the package isn't
split.
jena-arq would export the packages like `oaj.atlas.web` that it has but
not `oaj.atlas` itself.
jena-base would export `oaj.atlas`, and each subpackage by name. (No use of
`*`)
It is the same situation as jena-core having `org.apache.jena` and other
jars having `oaj.query`etc.
That is not a split package.
In an ideal world, the naming might be different but the question is what
does the current situation break?
The dependency is:
{noformat}
[INFO] org.apache.jena:jena-arq:jar:3.8.0-SNAPSHOT
[INFO] +- org.apache.jena:jena-core:jar:3.8.0-SNAPSHOT:compile
[INFO] | \- org.apache.jena:jena-base:jar:3.8.0-SNAPSHOT:compile
{noformat}
> "org.apache.jena.atlas.json.io.parser" | "org.apache.jena.riot.tokens
(jena-arq-3.7.0.jar)";
> Could this be changed?
To what?
They are both in jena-arq - I'm not seeing any problem with that. Are you
suggesting better naming or because something breaks?
(The name "atlas" is no more than a holder as a "lib".)
Arguably, the JSON package should have a different hierarchical name but I
agree with @ajs6f shuffling package names around impacts users heavily, and few
use java9 yet. The end target naming isn't clear until the whole of Jena is
considered.
---
