Tim, but Maven doesn't have a native concept of packages. That's a compiler concern, and now Java's compiler will have both package names and module names both with dots? I think that is confusing. A package is a properly nested naming structure... but a module is just a simple name. Correct me if wrong, but modules can't bundle nested modules, right? If it can't, then using dots is more problematic than it's worth. That's why I recommend it follow the standard Java identifier rules where underscores are the preferred separator. On Oct 28, 2015 2:43 PM, "Tim Boudreau" <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 - people have been using . as a delimiter for maven groupId and > artifactId names for years, and I've never heard of someone's head > exploding as a result. > > Similarly, NetBeans module system has used . as a delimiter since 2000, and > I don't recall ever seeing a message on the mailing lists (which I've been > on since '99 and am still active on) having a problem with it. > > -Tim > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:59 PM, David M. Lloyd <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > We've been (with JBoss Modules and thus our various application server > > offerings) using module name conventions that match package names for > > several years, and the number of people who have actually been confused > by > > it to my knowledge is exactly zero. > > > > The actual problem is probably quite overstated. People just don't seem > > to have trouble with this (nor do people generally seem to get confused > by, > > for example, a C++ library name being the same as the root C++ namespace > > used by that library, to draw another language equivalent). > > > > > > On 10/28/2015 06:56 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > > > >> Hi Marrio, > >> > >> When creating a new application, using the prefix of the packages as > name > >> for a module seems intuitive and using '_' instead of '.' as separator > >> inside the module name avoid the unecessary confusion for a human > between a > >> package and a module with the same name, it's just a code convention. > >> > >> When retrofitting an old application, like by example the JDK, you will > >> group packages that have no a common prefix name or the common prefix > can > >> be used for several modules, in that case, having a module named > java.base > >> but no package java.base.something seems counter intuitive, using '_' > >> instead of '.' make clear that a module name is just a name. > >> > >> regards, > >> Rémi > >> > >> ----- Mail original ----- > >> > >>> De: "Mario Torre" <[email protected]> > >>> À: "Paul Benedict" <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: [email protected] > >>> Envoyé: Mardi 27 Octobre 2015 23:41:05 > >>> Objet: Re: Jigsaw @ JavaOne 2015 > >>> > >>> 2015-10-27 22:13 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <[email protected]>: > >>> > >>>> Thanks Mark. Great slides. I'd just like to throw out my impression > >>>> (again) > >>>> that module names with dots look like packages. How receptive is the > EG > >>>> to > >>>> changing it to underscores? > >>>> > >>> > >>> I think that this is the exact point, mapping to package seems quite > >>> intuitive as it represents directly the content of the module. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Mario > >>> > >>> -- > >>> pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF > >>> Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF > >>> > >>> Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens > >>> Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ > >>> OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ > >>> > >>> Please, support open standards: > >>> http://endsoftpatents.org/ > >>> > >>> > > -- > > - DML > > > > > > -- > http://timboudreau.com >
