I just discovered that Jena has renamed the org.json packages:
// package org.json ;
// Incorporated into ARQ with thanks.
package com.hp.hpl.jena.sparql.lib.org.json;
Is this really necessary?
While the code does give credit in comments this is lost in an IDE. This
in my opinion unreasonable (unless it is necessary for some reason).
I discovered this situation as I was importing org.json into an
application that also uses Jena. My IDE offered to import the com.hp
version or the org.json version. Being the inquisitive type I looked at
the source and, hmmmm... it's the same code.
I'd like to propose that when the Jena code is brought into the ASF this
code (and any other like it) is returned to its original package names.
My justification is:
a) we should give maximum credit where due
b) it prevents unnecessary duplication of code for downstream users
c) we'll be changing package names at that point anyway
Ross
