You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Dennis Kieselhorst <de...@apache.org> on 2018/05/13 05:37:14 UTC
Re: Release cxf-xjc-plugin so that it works with Java 10?
Hi guys,
some time ago my question was just to get cxf-xjc-plugin released. That should be easy.
Romain had some concerns with module names
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/790a276b4a7b3d977f5cb1abdc764a0529324b286fba915d19352afb@%3Cdev.cxf.apache.org%3E
but I think for the plugin we could just adjust the manifest and go ahead, right?
Cheers
Dennis
On 2018/04/09 04:10:36, Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Yeah, add automatic-module-name in MANIFEST is a good start that CXF can eventually move to module-path way.
>
> Since CXF is actually already OSGi module based, we won’t run into such “split-package” issue in CXF, follow the common rule(root package name) to add automatic-module-name in each CXF module make sense to us for now.
> －－－－－－－－－－－－－
> Freeman(Yue) Fang
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Andriy Redko <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Yes, we are looking into this (not specifically related to the plugin but to CXF as a whole). It was briefly
> > discussed on the mailing list, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7600 has been created, I am planning
> > to start working on it shortly if there are no objections. Thanks!
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Andriy Redko
> >
> >
> > DK> I guess the question is: does anyone know what would be needed for the cxf-xjc-runtime artifact (and maybe others)
> > DK> to have the needed module name or whatever to work better on Java 9/10? I haven’t looked. If we are looking into Java9/10 things, might be good to also look at.
> >
> > DK> That said, I wouldn’t say it’s critical and thus doesn’t need to hold things up.
> >
> > DK> Dan
> >
> >
> >>> On Apr 5, 2018, at 4:43 AM, Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sure it makes sense. Is there anything else anyone wants to fixed in the
> >>> next release?
> >>>
> >>> Colm.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Dennis Kieselhorst <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Freeman adapted cxf-xjc-plugin to work with Java 10. What about releasing
> >>>> this so that users have a working release version?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> Dennis
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Colm O hEigeartaigh
> >>>
> >>> Talend Community Coder
> >>> http://coders.talend.com
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Release cxf-xjc-plugin so that it works with Java 10?
Posted by Andrey Redko <dr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Freeman,
Thanks a lot for sharing the post, will go through it shortly. Hope to have
something out this week so we could discuss it. Thanks!
Best Regards,
Andriy Redko
On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:03 AM Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andriy,
>
> Thanks for your work.
>
> I just believe the most important part of the module name is the
> uniqueness, and the root package name can give us the uniqueness naturally,
> as different modules shouldn’t have same root package names.
>
> Please take a look at this blog[1] which compared two name conventions and
> why we should use root package name and IMO every project should follow
> this common rule, which is less error-prone.
>
> [1]http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html
> －－－－－－－－－－－－－
> Freeman(Yue) Fang
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>
>
>
> On May 23, 2018, at 7:12 PM, Andriy Redko <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> Certainly an option, I have finally picked up the JIRA to work on that.
> The reason I lean towards
> a bit shorter cxf.xxx is that using package names is more verbose and
> 'org.apache' prefix does not
> really bring much meaning. Here is a bit old but relevant email thread on
> this subject
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2017-February/000582.html
>
> Some projects like Spring f.e. followed the spring.xxx module names
> convention while others
> like Hibernate Validator f.e. uses full package name, like
> org.hibernate.validator. It is up
> to us to decide what we think is best option for CXF. I think the sample
> usage scenarios
> would help us to make the right decisions (coming soon).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best Regards,
> Andriy Redko
>
> DK> Hi Andriy!
>
> Haven't started work on automatic module names yet, my bad. But we
> certainly could do that for
> the plugin, the only thing we need to do is to agree on naming convention
> to follow. Like f.e.,
> just to throw some ideas: cxf.xjc, cxf.core, cxf.cdi, cxf.opentracing,
> cxf.clustering, cxf.jaxrs.client,
> cxf.jaxrs.frontend, ... What do you think, guys?
>
>
> DK> Shouldn't we prefix it with org.apache, e.g. org.apache.cxf.xjc,
> org.apache.cxf.core, ...?
>
> DK> Regards
> DK> Dennis
>
>
>
Re: Release cxf-xjc-plugin so that it works with Java 10?
Posted by Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andriy,
Thanks for your work.
I just believe the most important part of the module name is the uniqueness, and the root package name can give us the uniqueness naturally, as different modules shouldn’t have same root package names.
Please take a look at this blog[1] which compared two name conventions and why we should use root package name and IMO every project should follow this common rule, which is less error-prone.
[1]http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-se-9-jpms-module-naming.html
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> On May 23, 2018, at 7:12 PM, Andriy Redko <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> Certainly an option, I have finally picked up the JIRA to work on that. The reason I lean towards
> a bit shorter cxf.xxx is that using package names is more verbose and 'org.apache' prefix does not
> really bring much meaning. Here is a bit old but relevant email thread on this subject
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2017-February/000582.html
>
> Some projects like Spring f.e. followed the spring.xxx module names convention while others
> like Hibernate Validator f.e. uses full package name, like org.hibernate.validator. It is up
> to us to decide what we think is best option for CXF. I think the sample usage scenarios
> would help us to make the right decisions (coming soon).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best Regards,
> Andriy Redko
>
> DK> Hi Andriy!
>
>>> Haven't started work on automatic module names yet, my bad. But we certainly could do that for
>>> the plugin, the only thing we need to do is to agree on naming convention to follow. Like f.e.,
>>> just to throw some ideas: cxf.xjc, cxf.core, cxf.cdi, cxf.opentracing, cxf.clustering, cxf.jaxrs.client,
>>> cxf.jaxrs.frontend, ... What do you think, guys?
>
> DK> Shouldn't we prefix it with org.apache, e.g. org.apache.cxf.xjc, org.apache.cxf.core, ...?
>
> DK> Regards
> DK> Dennis
>
Re: Release cxf-xjc-plugin so that it works with Java 10?
Posted by Andriy Redko <dr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dennis,
Certainly an option, I have finally picked up the JIRA to work on that. The reason I lean towards
a bit shorter cxf.xxx is that using package names is more verbose and 'org.apache' prefix does not
really bring much meaning. Here is a bit old but relevant email thread on this subject
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2017-February/000582.html
Some projects like Spring f.e. followed the spring.xxx module names convention while others
like Hibernate Validator f.e. uses full package name, like org.hibernate.validator. It is up
to us to decide what we think is best option for CXF. I think the sample usage scenarios
would help us to make the right decisions (coming soon).
Thanks!
Best Regards,
Andriy Redko
DK> Hi Andriy!
>> Haven't started work on automatic module names yet, my bad. But we certainly could do that for
>> the plugin, the only thing we need to do is to agree on naming convention to follow. Like f.e.,
>> just to throw some ideas: cxf.xjc, cxf.core, cxf.cdi, cxf.opentracing, cxf.clustering, cxf.jaxrs.client,
>> cxf.jaxrs.frontend, ... What do you think, guys?
DK> Shouldn't we prefix it with org.apache, e.g. org.apache.cxf.xjc, org.apache.cxf.core, ...?
DK> Regards
DK> Dennis
Re: Release cxf-xjc-plugin so that it works with Java 10?
Posted by Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>.
I mean since CXF modules are already OSGi bundles, so we don’t have such split-package issues between different modules, so use the common rule(root package name) as automatic-module-name in each CXF module make sense to us for now.
Thanks!
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> On May 23, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yep, I think we should use the common root package for each module.
> －－－－－－－－－－－－－
> Freeman(Yue) Fang
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>
>
>
>> On May 23, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Dennis Kieselhorst <deki@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andriy!
>>
>>> Haven't started work on automatic module names yet, my bad. But we certainly could do that for
>>> the plugin, the only thing we need to do is to agree on naming convention to follow. Like f.e.,
>>> just to throw some ideas: cxf.xjc, cxf.core, cxf.cdi, cxf.opentracing, cxf.clustering, cxf.jaxrs.client,
>>> cxf.jaxrs.frontend, ... What do you think, guys?
>>
>> Shouldn't we prefix it with org.apache, e.g. org.apache.cxf.xjc, org.apache.cxf.core, ...?
>>
>> Regards
>> Dennis
>
Re: Release cxf-xjc-plugin so that it works with Java 10?
Posted by Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>.
Yep, I think we should use the common root package for each module.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> On May 23, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Dennis Kieselhorst <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Andriy!
>
>> Haven't started work on automatic module names yet, my bad. But we certainly could do that for
>> the plugin, the only thing we need to do is to agree on naming convention to follow. Like f.e.,
>> just to throw some ideas: cxf.xjc, cxf.core, cxf.cdi, cxf.opentracing, cxf.clustering, cxf.jaxrs.client,
>> cxf.jaxrs.frontend, ... What do you think, guys?
>
> Shouldn't we prefix it with org.apache, e.g. org.apache.cxf.xjc, org.apache.cxf.core, ...?
>
> Regards
> Dennis
Re: Release cxf-xjc-plugin so that it works with Java 10?
Posted by Dennis Kieselhorst <de...@apache.org>.
Hi Andriy!
> Haven't started work on automatic module names yet, my bad. But we certainly could do that for
> the plugin, the only thing we need to do is to agree on naming convention to follow. Like f.e.,
> just to throw some ideas: cxf.xjc, cxf.core, cxf.cdi, cxf.opentracing, cxf.clustering, cxf.jaxrs.client,
> cxf.jaxrs.frontend, ... What do you think, guys?
Shouldn't we prefix it with org.apache, e.g. org.apache.cxf.xjc, org.apache.cxf.core, ...?
Regards
Dennis
Re: Release cxf-xjc-plugin so that it works with Java 10?
Posted by Andriy Redko <dr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dennis,
Haven't started work on automatic module names yet, my bad. But we certainly could do that for
the plugin, the only thing we need to do is to agree on naming convention to follow. Like f.e.,
just to throw some ideas: cxf.xjc, cxf.core, cxf.cdi, cxf.opentracing, cxf.clustering, cxf.jaxrs.client,
cxf.jaxrs.frontend, ... What do you think, guys?
Best Regards,
Andriy Redko
DK> Hi guys,
DK> some time ago my question was just to get cxf-xjc-plugin released. That should be easy.
DK> Romain had some concerns with module names
DK> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/790a276b4a7b3d977f5cb1abdc764a0529324b286fba915d19352afb@%3Cdev.cxf.apache.org%3E
DK> but I think for the plugin we could just adjust the manifest and go ahead, right?
DK> Cheers
DK> Dennis
DK> On 2018/04/09 04:10:36, Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1
>> Yeah, add automatic-module-name in MANIFEST is a good start that CXF can eventually move to module-path way.
>> Since CXF is actually already OSGi module based, we won’t run into such “split-package” issue in CXF, follow the common rule(root package name) to add automatic-module-name in each CXF module make sense to us for now.
>> －－－－－－－－－－－－－
>> Freeman(Yue) Fang
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Andriy Redko <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Dan,
>> >
>> > Yes, we are looking into this (not specifically related to the plugin but to CXF as a whole). It was briefly
>> > discussed on the mailing list, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7600 has been created, I am planning
>> > to start working on it shortly if there are no objections. Thanks!
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Andriy Redko
>> >
>> >
>> > DK> I guess the question is: does anyone know what would be needed for the cxf-xjc-runtime artifact (and maybe others)
>> > DK> to have the needed module name or whatever to work better on Java 9/10? I haven’t looked. If we are looking into Java9/10 things, might be good to also look at.
>> >
>> > DK> That said, I wouldn’t say it’s critical and thus doesn’t need to hold things up.
>> >
>> > DK> Dan
>> >
>> >
>> >>> On Apr 5, 2018, at 4:43 AM, Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Sure it makes sense. Is there anything else anyone wants to fixed in the
>> >>> next release?
>> >>>
>> >>> Colm.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Dennis Kieselhorst <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Freeman adapted cxf-xjc-plugin to work with Java 10. What about releasing
>> >>>> this so that users have a working release version?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Cheers
>> >>>> Dennis
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Colm O hEigeartaigh
>> >>>
>> >>> Talend Community Coder
>> >>> http://coders.talend.com
>> >
>> >