Draft JPMS Public Review specification
Tim_Ellison at uk.ibm.com
Wed Mar 15 13:26:03 UTC 2017
"jpms-spec-experts" <jpms-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net> wrote on
> 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
> >> 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
My examples are from teams in IBM who have tried adopting early builds,
hit this as a problem. While they can work around it by renaming their
to something they find unnatural, I find it hard to justify this
> >> There are any number of bad practices that could be accomplished
> >> current design, and attempting to spec them out of existence is
> quite futile.
> >> This proposal introduces friction to adoption for a very limited
> > 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
> > 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.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
More information about the jpms-spec-observers