[bv-dev] Jigsaw module name

[Gunnar Morling]

So "java.validation" should work (as a recommendation for now).

But I've learned that Oracle-led JSRs (e.g. JAX-RS 2.1) don't mention
anything in the spec (JAX-RS reference API just has a module-info.java
with a name they chose). We could do the same, and just have that
"recommendation" by putting this name into the reference
validation-api JAR, hoping that alternative API providers (Geronimo)
would do the same.

Personally I don't think there's much to loose by putting a
recommendation into a spec appendix. If needed, the name can change
when making it a mandatory thing in a future revision.

Thoughts?

--Gunnar


2017-05-03 22:35 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
> -1 on the EE prefix. Bean Validation is not (only) a EE spec.
>
> On 3 May 2017, at 20:26, Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I know it's late to reply to this, but seems fine. I'd consult the Java EE
> EG just to make sure they don't want to use a javax.ee prefix (which seems
> odd, though). Using the predominant/"root" package for the module is what
> I'd recommend too.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Java 9 is still in the works, so it's too early to put anything final
>> into the BV spec, but should we add a recommended module name for API
>> modules?
>>
>> My thinking is to have a short appendix stating:
>>
>>     "Implementors that wish to provide the Bean Validation API in form
>> of a Java 9 module,
>>      should use the module name "javax.validation". A mandatory module
>> name will be
>>      defined in a future revision of this specification".
>>
>> A commonly agreed on module name is required by Jigsaw to ensure
>> different API modules (e.g. the reference one and the one provided by
>> Apache) are interchangeable.
>>
>> I expect further changes to the spec to support Java 9 down the road
>> (e.g. to resolve message bundles in client modules and to provide a
>> way for passing in a Lookup granting private access (see [1]), but
>> it's nothing we can bake into the spec yet.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --Gunnar
>>
>> [1]
>> http://in.relation.to/2017/04/11/accessing-private-state-of-java-9-modules/
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev