Draft JPMS Public Review specification
David M. Lloyd
david.lloyd at redhat.com
Tue Mar 14 16:34:23 UTC 2017
On 03/14/2017 11:05 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 2017/3/12 15:54:41 -0700, tim_ellison at uk.ibm.com:
>> I agree that we should drop the proposal addressing #VersionsInModuleNames,
>> that module names must end with a Java letter. Based on practical experience
>> there are a number of libraries that have attempted to use a number
>> legitimately (i.e. not as a version identifier) and been caught out by this.
> Examples, please, other than `commons-lang3` and `fabric8`?
You may recall I posted a number of other examples in the email thread
about that subject. But if your answer is always going to be "other
than that, what else?" then I guess there's no more discussion possible
>> There are any number of bad practices that could be accomplished within the
>> current design, and attempting to spec them out of existence is quite futile.
>> This proposal introduces friction to adoption for a very limited gain.
> If only a couple of projects are affected by this constraint then perhaps the
> gain outweighs the friction.
> Otherwise, is there some other way to discourage developers from encoding
> version numbers in module names?
I think the point is that AFAICT nobody else agrees that encoding
version numbers in module names is a bad practice on its own merits.
Whatever it is you are trying to discourage can almost certainly be
accomplished in other (substantially worse) ways.
More information about the jpms-spec-observers