Module descriptions versus module descriptors

[Paul Benedict]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:39 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com>
wrote:

> I think that this use case is supported by the requirements.  While the
> requirements explicitly do not support multiple versions of modules, it is
> easy enough to package each version as a separate module with a different
> name, e.g. "org.apache.commons.collections.3.2" vs.
> "org.apache.commons.collections.3.3" or some such, optionally using a
> module alias to choose one of these to be the proper
> "org.apache.commons.collections" module.
>
>
The SOTMS makes it clear the "convention" is to use the package name as the
module name. My example is based on that convention. If versioning is
always going to be an issue, that statement cannot hold true. Besides, I
think putting the version in the module name defeats one of the design
assumptions: the ability to swap in newer versions that are different than
what was compiled against. In a world where semver is practiced perfectly,
3.3 should be able to be subbed for 3.2.

Cheers,
Paul