org.json

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

I just discovered that Jena has renamed the org.json packages:

// package org.json ;
// Incorporated into ARQ with thanks.
package com.hp.hpl.jena.sparql.lib.org.json;

Is this really necessary?

While the code does give credit in comments this is lost in an IDE. This 
in my opinion unreasonable (unless it is necessary for some reason).

I discovered this situation as I was importing org.json into an 
application that also uses Jena. My IDE offered to import the com.hp 
version or the org.json version. Being the inquisitive type I looked at 
the source and, hmmmm... it's the same code.

I'd like to propose that when the Jena code is brought into the ASF this 
code (and any other like it) is returned to its original package names. 
My justification is:

a) we should give maximum credit where due
b) it prevents unnecessary duplication of code for downstream users
c) we'll be changing package names at that point anyway

Ross

Re: org.json

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 06/03/2011 22:12, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 06/03/11 22:01, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> I just discovered that Jena has renamed the org.json packages:
>
> There is no org.json code in the codebase any more, renamed or otherwise.

Ahhh, so we're on an old version then. Sorry didn't check that.

> It used to have that code - but it's been completely rewritten as the
> JSON license is tricky in some quarters.
>
> The JOSN parser is based on the fast Java I/O I've done.

That sounds interesting, I'll review that.

Thanks.

Ross

Re: org.json

[Andy Seaborne <an...@epimorphics.com>]

On 06/03/11 22:01, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I just discovered that Jena has renamed the org.json packages:

There is no org.json code in the codebase any more, renamed or otherwise.

See

https://jena.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/jena/ARQ/trunk/src/com/hp/hpl/jena/sparql/lib/

No "org"

and it is gone in ARQ 2.8.7, the download includes the source code.

It used to have that code - but it's been completely rewritten as the 
JSON license is tricky in some quarters.

The JOSN parser is based on the fast Java I/O I've done.

> // package org.json ;
> // Incorporated into ARQ with thanks.
> package com.hp.hpl.jena.sparql.lib.org.json;
>
> Is this really necessary?

It mean that ARQ would not get into package clash problems with code 
that used the JSON code via a different route.

	Andy

> While the code does give credit in comments this is lost in an IDE. This
> in my opinion unreasonable (unless it is necessary for some reason).
>
> I discovered this situation as I was importing org.json into an
> application that also uses Jena. My IDE offered to import the com.hp
> version or the org.json version. Being the inquisitive type I looked at
> the source and, hmmmm... it's the same code.
>
> I'd like to propose that when the Jena code is brought into the ASF this
> code (and any other like it) is returned to its original package names.
> My justification is:
>
> a) we should give maximum credit where due
> b) it prevents unnecessary duplication of code for downstream users
> c) we'll be changing package names at that point anyway
>
> Ross