You should read (or re-read) this - http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html <http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html>. I believe it is the most likely standard to be adopted.
Ralph > On Sep 11, 2017, at 6:26 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]>
