I too like the dash approach unless Apache likes having a domain name style which implies (family) membership hierarchy.
From: Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 07/15/2019 12:05 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: openwhisk => apache-openwhisk? The name with the dash looks nicer, agreed. In migrating from an old package name to a new one where you already have existing users, I haven't seen a solution to that myself quite yet, though I know that Groovy has a similar problem where their packages are still published under the `org.codehaus.groovy` group id instead of `org.apache.groovy`. While Maven and NPM are quite different, the method of migrating a package name is similarly not well-defined in both systems. Does anyone have more info about how NPM runs their repository? Maybe they can add in some redirects of some sort. On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 11:11, James Thomas <jthomas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.npmjs.com_package_openwhisk&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw&m=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8&s=C-3wIDNjUO6k1tpWW7WQA9d4c-lbe7KshNS1jAR6jxM&e= ) 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_search-3Fq-3Drequire-2528-2522openwhisk-2522-2529-26type-3DCode&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw&m=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8&s=nIOIJxXhbd1TkXzWJVHx9-NAMQV4JuBsXbm1pEkX8u0&e= > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D109454613&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw&m=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8&s=ZshMeW40IVmdVpBrfK3b_ERcnaA4Bh7h3iqXvO_NDCc&e= > [2] - following NPM JS module conventions - apache-openwhisk is much > preferable than a single word (apacheopenwhisk). > > -- > Regards, > James Thomas -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
