Reviewing the ASF guidelines on NPM packages to check our JS SDK satifises all the rules[1] - we're supposed to be publishing the NPM package as "apacheopenwhisk" and not "openwhisk". This NPM library was published at ( https://www.npmjs.com/package/openwhisk) before the project was donated to Apache.
Moving from the library to publish at `apache-openwhisk` rather than `openwhisk`[2] is not technically challenging (and the new package name is available) but will cause numerous issues.... I'm asking for comments on what to do about this. Would like to engage the ASF mentors for advice as well. What does the community think about this? The library has significant usage (NPM tells me the library is averaging 6k downloads a week) using the existing package name. GitHub lists 38K references to the module. https://github.com/search?q=require%28%22openwhisk%22%29&type=Code All those external dependent projects, blog posts, documentation and tutorials, etc, that reference the library (and are outside of our control) will be reliant on the old package name. These will still work (as the old library version will still be available from NPM) but never receive new versions on installing the dependency. This may eventually mean the old library doesn't work with future platform changes and/or lead to security issues with outdated dependencies. I'm not sure if there's any leeway in the allowing the short-name for the NPM library (given we follow all the other requirements)? This will be a significant amount of work just changing all the references in project we control. If we do change the name - I'd assume `apache-openwhisk` is fine. Using `apacheopenwhisk` is slightly horrid.... [1] - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=109454613 [2] - following NPM JS module conventions - apache-openwhisk is much preferable than a single word (apacheopenwhisk). -- Regards, James Thomas
