You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Matthew Hayes <ma...@gmail.com> on 2015/08/08 00:16:41 UTC
apache package naming convention
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
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Russell Jurney <ru...@gmail.com>.
I think we should actually file JIRAs in all the projects with org.apache
namespaces and ask them to adopt our convention.
On Friday, August 7, 2015, Sam Shah <sh...@umich.edu> wrote:
> +1. Pig scripts are written by hand, mostly by data scientists with modest
> software skills, so asking them to change all their scripts is both painful
> and annoying with no real benefit.
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Russell Jurney <russell.jurney@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible
> bloat,
> > and the change would be breaking.
> >
> > On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
> > > matthew.terence.hayes@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > Current statement on Incubator website
> > >
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging
> > >
> > > But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before
> graduation)
> > > then later.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Luciano Resende
> > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jurney@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>
> > datasyndrome.com
> >
>
--
Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jurney@gmail.com datasyndrome.com
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Sam Shah <sh...@umich.edu>.
+1. Pig scripts are written by hand, mostly by data scientists with modest
software skills, so asking them to change all their scripts is both painful
and annoying with no real benefit.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Russell Jurney <ru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat,
> and the change would be breaking.
>
> On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
> > matthew.terence.hayes@gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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
> > >
> >
> > Current statement on Incubator website
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging
> >
> > But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation)
> > then later.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> >
>
>
> --
> Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jurney@gmail.com
> datasyndrome.com
>
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Sam Shah <sh...@umich.edu>.
+1. Pig scripts are written by hand, mostly by data scientists with modest
software skills, so asking them to change all their scripts is both painful
and annoying with no real benefit.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Russell Jurney <ru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat,
> and the change would be breaking.
>
> On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
> > matthew.terence.hayes@gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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
> > >
> >
> > Current statement on Incubator website
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging
> >
> > But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation)
> > then later.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> >
>
>
> --
> Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jurney@gmail.com
> datasyndrome.com
>
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Jakob,
I was curious about you statement about Kafka so I went and looked.
I only looked at the client code, but it appears that it is all under
org.apache.kafka.
Can you say more about what you meant by "Kafka has done fine without doing
so"?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no reason to change the packages. Kafka has done fine
> without doing so, as has been OpenNLP. There are no commercial or
> vendor concerns. There is no legal requirement to do so. It's a
> purely technical issue (how Java happens to organize code).
>
> -jakob
>
>
> On 7 August 2015 at 21:41, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> > By that notion, practically all incoming projects would be in non
> > org.apache namespaces, and that would be a different kind of detrimental
> > situation.
> >
> > So, my(!) general recommendation has been; for any releases that maintain
> > 100% compatibility, keep the namespace as before. But as soon as a major
> > (1.x -> 2.0) release is made, that the namespace is changing with it.
> >
> > Doing a search/replace for "s/import datafu/import org.apache.datafu"
> > across N files (and you can provide the script) is not a big deal
> compared
> > to whatever other compatibility-breaking changes that are introduced in
> the
> > major upgrade.
> >
> > But as Luciano says; The sooner, the better, as fewer people are
> impacted.
> >
> > Niclas
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Russell Jurney <russell.jurney@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible
> bloat,
> >> and the change would be breaking.
> >>
> >> On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
> >> > matthew.terence.hayes@gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Current statement on Incubator website
> >> >
> >> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging
> >> >
> >> > But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before
> graduation)
> >> > then later.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Luciano Resende
> >> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> >> > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> >> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jurney@gmail.com
> >> datasyndrome.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>.
There is no reason to change the packages. Kafka has done fine
without doing so, as has been OpenNLP. There are no commercial or
vendor concerns. There is no legal requirement to do so. It's a
purely technical issue (how Java happens to organize code).
-jakob
On 7 August 2015 at 21:41, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> By that notion, practically all incoming projects would be in non
> org.apache namespaces, and that would be a different kind of detrimental
> situation.
>
> So, my(!) general recommendation has been; for any releases that maintain
> 100% compatibility, keep the namespace as before. But as soon as a major
> (1.x -> 2.0) release is made, that the namespace is changing with it.
>
> Doing a search/replace for "s/import datafu/import org.apache.datafu"
> across N files (and you can provide the script) is not a big deal compared
> to whatever other compatibility-breaking changes that are introduced in the
> major upgrade.
>
> But as Luciano says; The sooner, the better, as fewer people are impacted.
>
> Niclas
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Russell Jurney <ru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat,
>> and the change would be breaking.
>>
>> On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
>> > matthew.terence.hayes@gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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
>> > >
>> >
>> > Current statement on Incubator website
>> >
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging
>> >
>> > But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation)
>> > then later.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Luciano Resende
>> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
>> > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
>> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jurney@gmail.com
>> datasyndrome.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
By that notion, practically all incoming projects would be in non
org.apache namespaces, and that would be a different kind of detrimental
situation.
So, my(!) general recommendation has been; for any releases that maintain
100% compatibility, keep the namespace as before. But as soon as a major
(1.x -> 2.0) release is made, that the namespace is changing with it.
Doing a search/replace for "s/import datafu/import org.apache.datafu"
across N files (and you can provide the script) is not a big deal compared
to whatever other compatibility-breaking changes that are introduced in the
major upgrade.
But as Luciano says; The sooner, the better, as fewer people are impacted.
Niclas
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Russell Jurney <ru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat,
> and the change would be breaking.
>
> On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
> > matthew.terence.hayes@gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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
> > >
> >
> > Current statement on Incubator website
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging
> >
> > But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation)
> > then later.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> >
>
>
> --
> Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jurney@gmail.com
> datasyndrome.com
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Russell Jurney <ru...@gmail.com>.
Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat,
and the change would be breaking.
On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
> matthew.terence.hayes@gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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
> >
>
> Current statement on Incubator website
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging
>
> But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation)
> then later.
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
--
Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jurney@gmail.com datasyndrome.com
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Russell Jurney <ru...@gmail.com>.
Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat,
and the change would be breaking.
On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
> matthew.terence.hayes@gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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
> >
>
> Current statement on Incubator website
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging
>
> But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation)
> then later.
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
--
Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jurney@gmail.com datasyndrome.com
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
matthew.terence.hayes@gmail.com> 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
>
Current statement on Incubator website
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging
But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation)
then later.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
matthew.terence.hayes@gmail.com> 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
>
Current statement on Incubator website
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging
But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation)
then later.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
For incubator projects, I strongly suggest renames unless there is a
compelling counter argument.
I think that many others would make similar suggestions, but doubt that
there is explicit policy on this.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@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 <an...@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
>
>
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Matthew Hayes <ma...@gmail.com>.
Thanks everyone for the feedback!
-Matt
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Chris Nauroth <cn...@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" <st...@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 <ro...@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 <an...@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
>
>
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>.
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" <st...@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 <ro...@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 <an...@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
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
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 <ro...@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 <an...@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
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
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 <an...@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
Re: apache package naming convention
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
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