incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthew Hayes <matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: apache package naming convention
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:14:32 GMT
Thanks everyone for the feedback!

-Matt

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Chris Nauroth <cnauroth@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> Consideration of end user impact is a great point, and perhaps the most
> important consideration.  In the case of DataFu, others have brought up
> that the rename would be a backwards-incompatible change that breaks all
> existing client scripts that use DataFu, and going forward such a change
> would cause extra low-value typing in a scripting language that's targeted
> to serving non-programmers.  I think this makes a compelling argument for
> preserving the existing names in DataFu.  For another project where the
> package names are entirely an implementation detail and not user-facing,
> doing the rename is not likely to cause impact.
>
> Thanks for bringing up the topic, Matt.
>
> --Chris Nauroth
>
>
>
>
> On 8/10/15, 2:22 AM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <stain@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >I think you should consider the impact and potential gain on a
> >per-project basis, and agree this within the podling. I don't think we
> >can prescribe one way or the other for every project.
> >
> >
> >Changing the package name can for Java developers be a bit of an
> >identity thing and help to level the playing field if a strong
> >commercial actor is still involved. Removing
> >com.proprietarycompany.projectname can be more important than removing
> >a neutral org.projectname.
> >
> >
> >A more user-fronting project (e.g. a GUI or self-contained server)
> >face less impact on renaming than a project with many compile-bindings
> >outside the project (e.g. Hadoop).
> >
> >
> >For the Taverna incubator (which can't be reliably placed on such an
> >axis with a GUI+server and many external plugins), we decided that as
> >we were moving to Apache at the same time as we were getting ready for
> >3.0 with a different plugin system anyway, then this was a good time
> >(and perhaps the only time) to do package rename.
> >
> >But for our project, which had numerous git repositories, Maven
> >modules and OSGi configurations (and was due some refactoring), a Java
> >package rename and restructuring was a bit more work than a quick sed
> >and folder move, and left the codebase in non-compilable flux for
> >several months and took away focus from community building.
> >
> >On the other hand, this was a good exercise for engaging the whole of
> >the PPMC in taking responsibility for all of the code base - for our
> >project we had a history of divide-and-conquer responsibilities, but
> >once we had agreed on the new structure, then several committers could
> >help in getting the code back in shape. Deciding on the code base
> >structure "by committee" in the open rather than through a visionary
> >"dictatorship" is quite a bit of overhead, but also helps build a
> >common understanding and buy-in of how the project should be.
> >
> >For an early project like the Commons RDF incubator, package rename
> >was done in a day and had minimal impact. Here we didn't do any
> >structural changes except splitting out a new module. I think keeping
> >the change lightweight is the best option if possible.
> >
> >As Andy pointed out, for a mature project like Jena (with third-party
> >bindings) you might consider to hold off package rename until the next
> >major release, which could be years down the line. You can still use
> >the org.apache.* packages for new stuff, and if you have a clear
> >api/impl split, also gradually move impl modules under org.apache.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 10 August 2015 at 02:28, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
> >> Thank you all for the feedback. This is super helpful!
> >>
> >> One question that I still have is this: do we have a bias
> >> for suggesting package rename or any package name
> >> can remain in place?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Jena graduated 2012 with old namespaces under com.hp.hpl.jena, and some
> >>> under org.openjena, with an intention to change at the first major
> >>>release
> >>> update.  As new packages came along, they went into org.apache.jena
> >>>but the
> >>> user facing packages remained where they were.
> >>>
> >>> We released Jena 3.0.0 last month, so 3 years. That major release was
> >>> coupled to another incompatible change (RDF 1.1 semantics) so 3.x
> >>> wasn't just to do the packages, package renaming waited until a
> >>>convenient
> >>> point.
> >>>
> >>> Our users have data with (RDF) namespaces under old names - we are not
> >>> planning on changing that at all.  (A general issue for all linked
> >>>data.)
> >>>
> >>> I don't see it as an issue for graduation if the project has
> >>>considered the
> >>> matter.
> >>>
> >>>         Andy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 07/08/15 23:16, Matthew Hayes wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Roman Shaposhnik suggested I open a discussion on the following topic:
> >>>>
> >>>> For Apache DataFu, all of the Java classes are declared in a datafu.*
> >>>> namespace.  This has been the naming convention since the DataFu
> >>>>project
> >>>> started in 2010.  Since DataFu became part of the Apache incubation
> >>>> process, the topic has come up of moving all of the classes into a
> >>>> org.apache.datafu.* namespace.  This was first discussed in January
> >>>>2014
> >>>> (see DATAFU-7) and most recently again in the past couple weeks.  The
> >>>> consensus at the time last year was that it would be a huge pain for
> >>>>users
> >>>> and not worth the cost.  It would break any script out there currently
> >>>> using DataFu.  Also Jakob Homan and Russell Journey pointed out that
> >>>>this
> >>>> is just a convention and not all Apache projects follow it.  Since we
> >>>> would
> >>>> like DataFu to graduate sometime soon it would be good to clarify
> >>>>what the
> >>>> requirements are on package naming conventions before we do a release.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Matt
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Stian Soiland-Reyes
> >Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> >http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message