On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know we discussed module names in the past and decided not to go the > route of modularizing now - in fact, we can’t until all of our dependencies > are modularized. However, we can (and probably should) add the automatic > module name as a manifest entry to each of our jars. My understanding is > that these would be the package name of the individual modules. For the > most part this should be trivial given the structure of our code base. > However I have two concerns: > > The package name used in log4j-api is org.apache.logging.log4j. My > understanding is that the module name should match the package name, but I > suspect most people would expect the module name to be > org.apache.logging.log4j.api. > I think we can leave that one as is. The package is org.apache.logging.log4j and that seems reasonable. It's the module name/artifact ID that we chose that is "different". If anything, I would change that. > Both log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j use org.apache.loggingj.slf4j. > Notice that neither has log4j in the package name. These need to be > separate packages to be able to define module names to them. > > Thoughts? > I think we should just bite the bullet and repackage these two under org.apache.logging.log4j. That means changing the module name and artifact ID though to avoid jar hell. log4j-slf4j-to-log4j and log4j-log4j-to-slf4j? A bit wordy... proposals? Gary > Ralph
