Jigsaw @ JavaOne 2015

[Remi Forax]

Hi Stephen,

----- Mail original -----
> De: "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebourne at joda.org>
> À: jigsaw-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Envoyé: Mercredi 28 Octobre 2015 19:48:13
> Objet: Re: Jigsaw @ JavaOne 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.

Not sure i'm convinced by this argument, Java uses several namespaces but we, human, use to use different naming conventions.
If we introduce '_' it will just a naming convention like the others.

> 
> 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"
> however.

yes, that the other option. It's not very java-ish, Java uses keyword when you define something not when you use it, unlike Ruby or Perl.

Thinking a little more about that, there is another place where using dot in module name is weird, the proposed layout of a Java project.
The module name is a folder name, so modules like com.foo.image.gif or com.bar.language.java will cause trouble with something as simple as the command ls.

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

Rémi

> 
> 
> 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
>