On 03/08/17 15:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project names its
java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s mainly the project’s
discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its adoption curve is an
important consideration.
+1
Most projects that enter the incubator are early on the adoption curve. Their
future users outnumber their current users. The earlier these projects make the
change to org.apache, the fewer people they will ultimately impact. It seems
that gobblin is in this category.
A few projects, such as Flex, are already near the top of their adoption curve.
The cost/benefit of renaming is not as compelling.
Jena was not early on the adoption curve. Long term compatibility has
been, and is, a major element of the project culture. Importantly,
there are active users who answer questions (here, elsewhere), external
web tutorials, books etc referring to the pre-ASF API. We have a
responsibility to them as well.
"add an API" is more stuff that a small set of volunteer contributors
(Jena has had no paid contributors working on) could not have coped
with. If a project has the capacity, sure. Not all project will.
Set the expectations too high and it is implicitly a filter for a
certain kind of project in size and structure.
Andy
Julian
On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
From the peanut gallery:
Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or does
the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache. We felt
backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason". It was way more
important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move to the
Apache versions of Flex. Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there isn't
really a shading option.
On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache projects
to have packages starting with "com.". Flex's packages start with "mx" or
"spark" (the component set names).
Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe org.somethingOtherThanApache)
should be changed as soon as possible/practical
2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 8/3/17, 5:42 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <a...@shanecurcuru.org
<mailto:a...@shanecurcuru.org>> wrote:
John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <a...@apache.org>
wrote:
Hi all,
In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
wondering
about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
it a
mandatory requirement or good to have?
The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have
migrated
to
use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
sources.
Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
renaming the packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
gobblin.*
package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
incompatibility.
You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
have a really,
really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming. IN fact,
last
time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and doesn't
have any actual naming requirements.
John: Do you have a link to that discussion? I'm of the mind that it's
an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good reason
otherwise.
Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in the
context of your software product?
In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
external API that most users would call:
Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
question will be
asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
still using
something other than o.a.
That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or things
that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those I
could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for compatibility
or other reasons.
But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary Gobblin
classes that users integrating the code into their application? That
should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
reasonably-near future after graduation. Not for the long term.
Thanks for raising the question early!
Thanks,
Roman.
--
- Shane
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach>
e.org
<http://e.org/>%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fresources&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef18c5e74b0141378
79a08d4da6d0e5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363736093056
90124&sdata=OyrEoidSvoONvFJksGYjhhz%2FatAd4b%2FyjmHcfoGeI%2B0%3D&reserved=
0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
<mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
<mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
<mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
<mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
