Is it possible to make the JPMS module names the same as the OSGi ones? The default OSGi naming scheme is basically:
groupId: org.apache.logging.log4j, artifactId: log4j-foo becomes bundleId: org.apache.logging.log4j.foo On 11 September 2017 at 13:01, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
