module name convention
mark.reinhold at oracle.com
mark.reinhold at oracle.com
Mon Oct 5 18:48:23 UTC 2015
2015/9/19 10:02 -0700, forax at univ-mlv.fr:
> Mani from AdoptAJSR has a very good question at the end of this document:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KlumN74IGt-TU-Md3Fn5h4sXHa75RApWNLszUTVp-DE/edit
>
> ...
>
> Both Eclipse and Maven use package name or at least package prefix as
> convention to name module and as Mani said it really confusing when you
> write a module-info file.
>
> Given that the name of the JDK modules doesn't respect that convention
> but still use '.' to separate the different components, I wonder if we
> should not try to come with a convention for module name that allow to
> easily disambiguate between package name and module name.
Yes, I think that's worth exploring.
> By example,
> java_base,
> java-base,
> java~base ...
Quick reactions:
java_base is still a Java identifier, which is nice.
java-base corresponds usefully to how JAR files are typically named
(e.g., java-base-1.2.3.jar).
java~base is pretty ugly (especially with longer names, e.g.,
jdk~scripting~nashorn~shell).
I'm sure there are other possibilities ...
> Obviously the other solution is to prefix a name by "package" or
> "module".
As in, `requires module com.foo` and `exports package com.foo`?
- Mark
More information about the jpms-spec-observers
mailing list