incubator-jena-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Seaborne <>
Subject Re: Fwd: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:20:09 GMT
On 29/02/12 14:01, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 29 February 2012 13:51, Benson Margulies<>  wrote:
>> One person on general@ has got this idea in his head about renaming,
>> and a board member and a host of others have told him, 'no'. So
>> there's no cause for concern.
> +1 (although Greg is not speaking as a board member - he simply said a
> change of policy would require a board resolution, if one were
> submitted then he would speak as a board member after discussing with
> the whole board)
> Jena is OK, it's a storm in a teacup. Your mentors will intervene if
> necessary (as Benson just did here). For now monitoring the thread and
> providing appropriate support to the "correct" course of action is all
> you need to do right now.

I hope so - currently we have a small minority of code under 
org.apache.jena. (err - LARQ and Fuseki IIRC)

Some is easy to convert completely, with a little user pain (SDB?), some 
is a major task.


> Ross
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Andy Seaborne<>  wrote:
>>> On 29/02/12 13:13, Ian Dickinson wrote:
>>>> On 29/02/12 12:05, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>> A discussion on general@i
>>>>> It will resolve whether we have to repackage Jena to graduate.
>>>> It's not just the repackaging. Some of the more astringent commenters
>>>> are "shocked" that even having compatibility packages and classes (i.e
>>>> not under org.apachSame length:


No btes saved.
e) in a TLP has ever been allowed. So depending on
>>>> how the vote goes, we could be forced to remove all mention of com.hp.*
>>>> from the code base, and host the compatibility layer packages somewhere
>>>> else.
>>>> The problem that gives us is that all the references out there to Jena -
>>>> code samples, presentations, articles, papers, tutorials and even books
>>>> will be instantly out of date. The discussion on general@ has the tenor
>>>> of "well, it's Cloudera's problem so let them sort it out" but that's
>>>> not true for Jena. It's not HP's problem!
>>> Absolutely agree.  And to your general@i email.
>>> It's a major cost to users, and I don't see that it is to anyone's benefit
>>> to force the extreme case of no non-apache packages.
>>> It's hard to determine but I don't see any evidence that some set of
>>> potential users is put off using Jena by the package name.  We do known that
>>> leaving HP made a difference.
>>>> If we have to re-name packages to graduate, so be it that's not really a
>>>> big deal**. If we have to completely expunge all mention of com.hp.*,
>>>> that would be at the very least disappointing.
>>> And then there are vocabularies :-|
>>>> Ian
>>>> ** Well, it'll take some work to get the site docs and Javadoc in line
>>>> with the packages.
>>> The other thing about this whole discussion is that it is loaded.
>>> If incubator expects a project to rename, it's still not promising it will
>>> graduate.  So a podling comes in, does the change, gets mauled, the user
>>> community messed about.  Can the podling take the namespace with it if it is
>>> retired?
>>>         Andy

View raw message