[bv-dev] Jigsaw module name

[Michael Nascimento]

In the JPA mailing list, Bill Shannon and Linda were saying specs shouldn't
mention anything about modules at this point. Some suggested this could be
done at the next MR. It's better to align with them then.

Regards,
Michael

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20170509/2ed8aaf9/attachment.html