Isn't it the opposite? Giving them the same module name will prevents them from being used together, which is what we want:
http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html?m=1 "JPMS will simply refuse to start a modulepath where two modules have the same name, even if they contain different packages." (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info > On Sep 12, 2017, at 13:29, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually, re-reading this again makes it clear to me that log4j-slf4j-impl > and log4j-to-slf4j SHOULD use the same package name as it prevents them from > both being present at the same time. Obviously, their module names still have > to be different but this could mean the code doesn’t really need to be > modified. > > 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]> > >
