Jigsaw @ JavaOne 2015

Stephen Colebourne scolebourne at joda.org
Wed Oct 28 18:48:13 UTC 2015

I've also been somewhat concerned that the two namespaces are similar,
but concluded that it is best that way. Using underscores, dashes or
anything else would be more confusing, given that the emphasis is on a
namespace concept within the JLS.

I do find remembering which is which, module vs package, in
module-info.java is a little confusing, but I suspect we'll get used
to it. I wouldn't object to using "requires module com.foo.bar"

I'm more concerned about some other aspects of the module spec, which
I'm still pondering.


On 28 October 2015 at 16:59, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> 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" <neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com>
>>> À: "Paul Benedict" <pbenedict at apache.org>
>>> Cc: jigsaw-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 27 Octobre 2015 23:41:05
>>> Objet: Re: Jigsaw @ JavaOne 2015
>>> 2015-10-27 22:13 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbenedict at apache.org>:
>>>> 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

More information about the jigsaw-dev mailing list