Yeah the typical thing to use is the subdomain (in this case org.apache.kudu).
A few thoughts about package naming: 1. While using the apache subdomain for Java package names is encouraged, and often the most obvious thing to do (i.e. when you're starting from scratch), it's not required. If we don't do it then a few people will ask why, and complain about it, and make a big deal out of it accusing the project of some nefarious intent, but I think ultimately we wouldn't have to change the package names since it's not a licensing issue. 2. If it's not too much effort to do it in a backwards-compatible way, it's probably worth doing for (a) branding and (b) to avoid the distraction of the above argument. 3. IMHO it would be preferable to get sign-off on the Apache Kudu name ( see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93 ) before we spend effort on something that we might have to change again later (imagine having to maintain 2 sets of facade classes). Mike On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Dan Burkert <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm an apache noob as well, but I assume it should be "org.apache.kudu", > since our official apache project name is 'kudu'. I think we settled on > kududb.io since we couldn't get kudu.io way back when. > > - Dan > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Adar Dembo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm +1 to changing it provided Kudu isn't kicked out of Apache. :) As an > > Apache newbie, is there any danger of that happening? That is, of the > > project being declared not fit for TLP? It'd be a shame if we changed > > package names only to have that happen. > > > > Also, shouldn't it be "org.apache.kududb", not "org.apache.kudu"? > > > > Separately, how can this be done without breaking compatibility? I > thought > > package name changes were, by definition, breaking changes. > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Dan Burkert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm +1 to changing the package prior to 1.0. Sooner the better, in my > > > opinion. I'm -0 to trying to do it in a backwards compatible way, I > > don't > > > think the upside is worth any effort. > > > > > > - Dan > > > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hey devs, > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion around package names. > > > > > > > > Right now our packages are prefixed with "org.kududb", a domain that > > > AFAIK > > > > is owned by Cloudera with a plan to transfer it to the ASF. In a > > perfect > > > > world they should be named "org.apache.kudu" but it's not a > > requirement. > > > > Many projects like Apache Netty and Apache OpenOffice use their own > > > package > > > > prefixes. > > > > > > > > The main impact of doing this is mostly on the Java side, and it can > be > > > > done without breaking existing but it would be quite a big effort. > > OTOH, > > > if > > > > the community generally agrees that it should be done, then now's a > > good > > > > time since we're releasing 1.0 in a little over 2 months. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > J-D > > > > > > > > > >
