On second thought... Adding module-info.java to all sub-modules seems to be a relatively simple task (though it might involve laborious work), however, properly maintaining them would not be so trivial I suspect. I'm not sure developers (including me) are ready for the module system. Introducing it right now could put another burden on us?
I'm not an expert in this area. What do you think? Tomoko 2020年11月26日(木) 19:48 Dawid Weiss <[email protected]>: > I think this sounds good! > D. > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:20 PM Tomoko Uchida > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The check could be implemented (crudely) by looking at java > > > sourceSets, scanning which folders *.java files live in (packages) and > > > then checking for conflicts at the top-level project? > > > > I opened LUCENE-9604 some days ago, I've done nothing yet for it. > > > > Maybe we can add a precommit check to find split packages using Gradle > APIs, but - how about having module-info.java now instead of an ad-hoc > temporary solution (though I don't know if there is another issue to be > considered)? > > As a starter, we could open up (export) all existing packages... > > > > > > 2020年11月12日(木) 0:51 Dawid Weiss <[email protected]>: > >> > >> Thanks Tomoko! > >> > >> The check could be implemented (crudely) by looking at java > >> sourceSets, scanning which folders *.java files live in (packages) and > >> then checking for conflicts at the top-level project? > >> > >> The test framework needs to be package-split to see core internals? > >> > >> Dawid > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 4:09 PM Tomoko Uchida > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > I closed LUCENE-9499, which means we now have no split packages in > lucene (except for test-framework). > >> > Please keep in mind we still don't have any static > analysis/validations to prevent someone from adding another package name > conflicts between modules. > >> > > >> > > >> > 2020年11月5日(木) 19:38 Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>: > >> >> > >> >> Hi, > >> >> please review LUCENE-9600, this cleans up split packages in "misc" > module and makes some refactoring on classes in lucene/misc to keep > lucene/core unchanged. > >> >> > >> >> Tomoko > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2020年10月24日(土) 19:25 Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>: > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi, > >> >>> please review LUCENE-9319. This tries to resolve package name > conflicts between "sandbox" and "core" modules. > >> >>> Looks like many eyeballs are needed for cleaning up our sandbox. > >> >>> > >> >>> Tomoko > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> 2020年10月18日(日) 0:36 Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hi, > >> >>>> please review LUCENE-9318, this refactors backward-codecs module > (packages are renamed). > >> >>>> I'm going to merge it into the master after waiting a week or so > if there is no objection/feedback. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Tomoko > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 2020年9月3日(木) 22:35 Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I also opened SOLR-14826 as the placeholder. I'm not fully sure > of its priority but at least Alexandre expressed an interest in fixing it > for Solr, thanks. > >> >>>>> If there is someone who wants to take the ownership, please feel > free to join. I will leave it there until LUCENE-9499 is done anyway. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> 2020年9月3日(木) 0:12 Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> I opened LUCENE-9499 as the umbrella. > >> >>>>>> I set "Fix version" to 9.0 - means once we make a commit on it, > this will be a blocker for release 9.0.0. (I don't think the changes should > be delivered across two major releases; all changes have to be out at once > in a major release.) If there are any objections or concerns, please leave > comments. For now I have no idea about the total volume of changes or > technical obstacles that have to be handled. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> About Solr - do we really need to fix split packages? Solr is a > server app, the benefits seem to be smaller than Lucene (a library) for me. > I'd like to hear opinions/thoughts from others. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Tomoko > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> 2020年9月2日(水) 9:05 Gus Heck <[email protected]>: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> +1 to fixing and +1 to doing it in a major release. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:32 PM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> +1 Changing packages of many classes should be done in a major. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:50 PM Tomoko Uchida < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> Just to make sure, could I confirm "when the changes will be > out"... > >> >>>>>>>>> Resolving split package issues should break backward > compatibility (changing package names and moving classes from one module to > another modules). So we have just two options, we can have these changes > only on major releases - 9.0.0 or 10.0.0; we cannot release such changes at > minor versions. Is that correct? > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> Tomoko > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> 2020年9月1日(火) 22:08 Tomoko Uchida < > [email protected]>: > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > As I recall one issue was around where to put analysis > packages? > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> It's LUCENE-9317. I had worked on it before, you can see > what changes will be needed for analyzers-common (and core). > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> 2020年9月1日(火) 22:00 Michael Sokolov <[email protected]>: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm in favor - there may be some difficult choices though. > As I recall > >> >>>>>>>>>>> one issue was around where to put analysis packages? I > forget the > >> >>>>>>>>>>> details, but there was some pretty strong feeling that you > should have > >> >>>>>>>>>>> a functioning system with core only. However some basic > analysis tools > >> >>>>>>>>>>> are required for that, while most of our analyzers and so > on are in a > >> >>>>>>>>>>> separate analysis module. Perhaps we will need to move some > basic > >> >>>>>>>>>>> analyzers out of com.amazon.lucene.analysis? Or the reverse > - move all > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the analysis code into the analysis module and acknowledge > that it is > >> >>>>>>>>>>> a fundamental dependency (more essential than core, really). > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:26 AM Tomoko Uchida > >> >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > yes, Jigsaw was on my mind too... > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > why not go ahead and try to clean it up right away? > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > So a strong +1 to clean this up! > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > OK, maybe I should open two issues, one for Lucene and > one for Solr, and link existing wip issues to them. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > Once we start it, these will be blockers for 9.0.0 > release I believe (for now I have no idea about the volume of the changes > or technical obstacles). Are there any objections or comments? > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > 2020年9月1日(火) 19:34 Uwe Schindler <[email protected]>: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi, > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> The biggest issue is that split packages make migrating > to the Java 9 module system impossible. It's not allowed to have same > package name (with classes) in different JAR files. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Some of those require to open up visibility of classes. > Some split packages issues were done because of package private access, > which is very bad between JAR files. This also affects the test framework, > although this is not such a big deal (I would exclude that for now), > because you would never run UNIT tests inside a module system, only > integration tests. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> So a strong +1 to clean this up! > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Uwe > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> ----- > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Uwe Schindler > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> https://www.thetaphi.de > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> eMail: [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > -----Original Message----- > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > From: Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 9:22 AM > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > To: Lucene Dev <[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > Subject: Re: Approach towards solving split package > issues? > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > This is a big headache for many things. I wouldn't > mind doing this > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > even for 9x. This is a major release, why not go ahead > and try to > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > clean it up right away? > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > Dawid > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:50 PM Tomoko Uchida > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Hello devs, > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > we have lots of package name conflicts (shared > package names) between > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > modules in the Lucene/Solr source tree. It is not only > annoying for devs/users > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > but also indeed bad practice since Java 9 (according > to my understanding), and > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > we already have some problems with Javadocs due to > these splitted packages > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > as some of us would know. I'm curious about the issue > from a while ago. My > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > questions are, Q1: How can we solve the issue in an > organized way? Q2: How > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > many of us really have interests about that? > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > To break down Q1, > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > - A JIRA for building a grand design and organizing > sub tasks is needed? We > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > have a couple of issues (e.g. LUCENE-9317 and > LUCENE-9319) about it and I > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > had been playing around them before; but I feel like > an umbrella ticket would > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > be needed. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > - When to start and what's the target version to be > out? My feeling is that > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > after cutting branch_9x is the right moment to start > and 10.0.0 is suitable for > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > the target, does this make sense? > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > - Are there any other tasks/concerns to be > considered except for just > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > renaming packages? > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Regarding Q2, > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > I know some of us have deep knowledge and thoughts > in this topic, but for > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > now I am not sure how many of you have the will to > give help or take time for > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > that. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > It can't be a one-man effort. The more people > understand and can contribute > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > to the build, the more healthy it will be. (I borrowed > this phrase from Gradle > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > build issue LUCENE-9077). > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > I don't intend to rush into making a decision, my > purpose here is to collect > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > information to see if I can handle it before opening a > JIRA. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Thanks, > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Tomoko > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: > [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: > [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>>>> Adrien > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > >> >>>>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
