module name convention

[Paul Benedict]

Definitely a -1 on dots in the module name. Underscores are better, but I
prefer dashes to align with general Maven conventions.

PS: Are there any rules that the module name must be a valid Java
identifier? If so, then underscores would fit the bill; dashes would not.

Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:53 AM, <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:

> Just a quick note,
> I've presented the Java module spec in its current state at JTRES (a
> realtime Java conf).
>
> I've used the '_' notation which clearly make the things more readable,
> I had no question related to the fact that people were troubled because
> 'requires' takes a module and 'exports' takes a package.
>
> Rémi
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> > De: "mark reinhold" <mark.reinhold at oracle.com>
> > À: "Remi Forax" <forax at univ-mlv.fr>
> > Cc: jpms-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net
> > Envoyé: Lundi 5 Octobre 2015 20:48:23
> > Objet: Re: module name convention
> >
> > 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
> >
>