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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev