On 12 February 2018 at 18:00, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: Good point, I had not thought that our modules wouldn't be able to load other extensions from classpath. You mostly invalidated it with the previous comment, but what I meant is that we can't have the `org.hibernate.search.engine` declare a dependency on any implementation module, as we're not adding a module-info definition. Interesting, I'm pretty sure we had some. We had several issues resolved over time to resolve them, I never realized we might have completed them all. The "line" defining what belongs where is still blurry though, we should make sure this won't have future regressions. I'll see if we can produce fully fledged module-info descriptors then :) +1 that's the better option. My thought was about automatic module names though, but totally irrelevant if we go for full modules. Thanks, Sanne

2018-02-12 19:28 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt;: Where I had problems with split packages was when exploring HSearch @ Java 9 modules last year was Lucene. In the version used back then (not sure whether it's still an issue today), there was a split package between Lucene's core and the util module (the one with the uninverting reader). You might take my example project I had created for running ORM as modules ( https://github.com/gunnarmorling/hibernate-orm-on-java9-modules/compare/o...) if you're interested in doing the same for HSearch. IIRC, the Lucene split package made me give up back then, it's surely worth taking another look with the current versions in use.

basic vetting that these modules will actually work when used as modules. If that's not the case, I wouldn't add these headers, as users rightfully may consider their presence as endorsement of using them as modules. If I understood correctly, automatic module names were introduced to facilitate the transition to Jigsaw modules. The point was to allow projects to give a name to their modules, and, yes, declare them as ready, but even if they couldn't be made full modules yet because of their dependencies. Declaring a name doesn't mean the module will work, it means it will work *when dependencies are fixed*. If we wait for all of our dependencies to work in a modular environment before we give a name to our modules, we may very well never do it because of circular dependencies ( Infinispan comes to mind: Infinispan-query depends on Search for, which depends on ORM, which depends on the Infinispan 2nd level cache provider). Declaring a full module-info.java is another matter, but as you mentioned, we simply can't do that yet because of split packages in Lucene. Back to naming... It looks good and consistent with the current naming our Maven artifacts. In 6, I would probably choose to rename the Elasticsearch one to something like org.hibernate.search.<backendOrSomething>.elasticsearch, but we still have to coin the right term for "<backendOrSomething>", and I would probably rename the Maven artifact too, so that can wait. I think you forgot the JSR 352 integration, but I guess the name would be rather obvious: - org.hibernate.search.jsr352 As to non-public APIs, can you confirm automatic modules can access the classpath transparently? If so then I agree, no need to name those.... Except for the JMS backend: it is unusable without the user extending AbstractJMSHibernateSearchController, so this class at least must be exposed to the user. Even if it's just SPI. On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 00:39 Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > The split package problem with Lucene won't easily go away, as we > can't upgrade Lucene now. > > But I vaguely remember working with you on that, didn't we figure out > that one of the Lucene modules wasn't essential? > > Either way, that's interesting to experiment with but we can't publish > full modules as almost none of our dependencies are ready; they should > at least all have an automatic module name. > > Thanks, > Sanne > > On 12 February 2018 at 19:43, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > > 2018-02-12 19:28 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > >> > >> On 12 February 2018 at 18:00, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > 2018-02-12 17:55 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > >> >> > >> >> Picking automatic module names for Hibernate Search isn't going to be > >> >> straight-forward as our two main jars (hibernate-search-engine & > >> >> hibernate-search-orm) suffer from split package among them. > >> >> > >> >> We can't really fix the split package problem without breaking all > >> >> users, so if we want to consider that, we can debate it but that will > >> >> need to happen at another round as we're doing a minor release, so > >> >> let's focus on: > >> >> # Which names to pick > >> >> # Should we pick the names at all > >> >> # Which modules should have a name > >> >> > >> >> For a great background on the possible strategies and pitfalls I > >> >> recommend reading Stephen Colebourne's blog on this subject [1]. > >> >> He persuaded me there are good reasons to use the "reverse DNS, the > >> >> top level package", however since we have the split package problem > we > >> >> can't simply go with that. > >> >> > >> >> Still, we can respect the principles he recommends with a small > >> >> variation. It's fair to assume that the `org.hibernate.search` prefix > >> >> is "ours"; since the nature of the suggestion is focused on making > >> >> sure there are no misunderstandings in the community about which > names > >> >> you can choose - as there is no central authority making sure module > >> >> names aren't clashing - we should be fine within Hibernate projects > >> >> with any `org.hibernate.X` prefix, as long as we coordinate and reach > >> >> an agreement on this list. > >> >> > >> >> So, I propose we use: > >> >> > >> >> Engine module: > >> >> - org.hibernate.search.engine > >> >> > >> >> ORM integration module: > >> >> - org.hibernate.search.orm > >> >> > >> > Those names sound good to me. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> JGroups, JMS backends: > >> >> [ no automatic module name ? Excepting some "guidelines" in the JMS > >> >> module, these are not public API so nobody would benefit from it - > >> >> also we think we might want to phase out the name "backend" in the > >> >> future ] > >> >> > >> >> Elasticsearch integration module > [hibernate-search-elasticsearch.jar]: > >> >> - org.hibernate.search.elasticsearch > >> >> > >> >> Elasticsearch / AWS security integration: > >> >> [ no automatic module name: no public API ] > >> >> > >> >> Serialization / Avro > >> >> [ no automatic module name: no public API ] > >> >> > >> >> WDYT? > >> > > >> > > >> > The user may still need to reference those modules when launching a > >> > modularized application. Also if they don't directly declare say the > JMS > >> > backend as a dependence of their own module, they'd still have to > >> > specify it > >> > via --add-modules, so to resolve these additional modules and add them > >> > to > >> > the module graph. Hence I'd declare automatic module names for these, > >> > too. > >> > >> Good point, I had not thought that our modules wouldn't be able to > >> load other extensions from classpath. > >> > >> >> We could also pick names for the ones which I've listed as "no public > >> >> API" but I see no point: as we're only assigning an "Automatic Module > >> >> Name" we won't be able to explicitly state that the other modules > >> >> depend on these. So nobody will use them, and things are a bit in > flux > >> >> anyway in this area because of Hibernate Search 6 plans. > >> > > >> > > >> > I don't fully understand this paragraph. > >> > >> You mostly invalidated it with the previous comment, but what I meant > >> is that we can't have the `org.hibernate.search.engine` declare a > >> dependency on any implementation module, as we're not adding a > >> module-info definition. > >> > >> >> Another optional altogether: since we have split packages which we'll > >> >> have to resolve before we can actually transform these into fully > >> >> fledged modules, I think an acceptable position is also to say we > >> >> won't be publishing any automatic module name yet. Personally I'm > >> >> inclined to go with the names suggested above, at least some others > >> >> can start making baby steps, even if it's not all there. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > basic > >> > vetting that these modules will actually work when used as modules. If > >> > that's not the case, I wouldn't add these headers, as users rightfully > >> > may > >> > consider their presence as endorsement of using them as modules. > >> > > >> > That said, I can't seem to find split packages between engine and orm. > >> > In > >> > fact I can launch an application with both of them on the module path > >> > just > >> > fine. So there may be no problem actually? > >> > >> Interesting, I'm pretty sure we had some. We had several issues > >> resolved over time to resolve them, I never realized we might have > >> completed them all. The "line" defining what belongs where is still > >> blurry though, we should make sure this won't have future regressions. > > > > > > Where I had problems with split packages was when exploring HSearch @ > Java 9 > > modules last year was Lucene. In the version used back then (not sure > > whether it's still an issue today), there was a split package between > > Lucene's core and the util module (the one with the uninverting reader). > > > > You might take my example project I had created for running ORM as > modules > > ( > https://github.com/gunnarmorling/hibernate-orm-on-java9-modules/compare/o... > ) > > if you're interested in doing the same for HSearch. IIRC, the Lucene > split > > package made me give up back then, it's surely worth taking another look > > with the current versions in use. > >> > >> > >> I'll see if we can produce fully fledged module-info descriptors then :) > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> # What I don't like: > >> >> For one, that the typical application will need to import both > >> >> `org.hibernate.search.engine` and `org.hibernate.search.orm`, and > >> >> likely more as well (e.g. Elasticsearch API, Lucene API module is > >> >> coming, ..). > >> > > >> > > >> > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "import" here. But if it's about > >> > the > >> > user having to declare dependences in their module descriptor to > >> > o.h.s.engine and o.h.s.orm modules, you may consider to make the > former > >> > a > >> > transitive dependence of the latter once you add actual module > >> > descriptors: > >> > > >> > module org.hibernate.search.orm { > >> > requires transitive org.hibernate.search.engine; > >> > ... > >> > } > >> > > >> > That way the user just has to add declare the dependence to o.h.s.orm. > >> > That's definitely suitable if APIs in o.h.s.orm use types from engine > in > >> > their public API signatures. > >> > >> +1 that's the better option. > >> > >> My thought was about automatic module names though, but totally > >> irrelevant if we go for full modules. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Sanne > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Maybe similar to BOM's today we could publish a module which > >> >> statically imports multiple of these, that could be nicer to use but > >> >> we risk needing to publish (and document) one for each of a selection > >> >> of combinations. So let's not start with such things yet. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> Sanne > >> >> > >> >> [1] > http://blog.joda.org/2017/05/java-se-9-jpms-automatic-modules.html > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> hibernate-dev mailing list > >> >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > >> > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > -- Yoann Rodiere yoann(a)hibernate.org / yrodiere(a)redhat.com Software Engineer Hibernate NoORM team

If what you meant by "work as modules" was "work as *automatic* modules" (i.e. with dependencies in the classpath), we already test that. We just happen to know they can't work as "full" modules (with module-info) yet. default resolver will not allow cycles between modules. The cycles are merely between projects, not between modules. It's more a release issue than a technical issue. The problem arises mainly from the fact that Infinispan has two sides: the server, and the client libraries. I guess one way to do it would be for Infinispan to first switch to Jigsaw modules for their core modules and client library modules, then we do the switch on our side, then they can do the switch for their server modules. But I would expect such plan to be slower than switching to automatic modules first, then to full modules when every dependency is ready. In any case, there shouldn't be a problem at runtime, so it shouldn't prevent us from running Jigsaw modules once they are ready, but it's still a problem to do the switch to full Jigsaw modules. UNNAMED module, and all automatic modules read that). Thanks for confirming that. to configure. For instance for an app with a module-info.java, Maven will put all dependencies to the module path when invoking javac; if you wanted to have some deps on the classpath and some on the module path, that'd be some manual effort. Hence my suggestion to give automatic module names to all of them and using them on the module path. Let me get this straight: I want to just define automatic module names for our modules, but still rely exclusively on the classpath for our own dependencies, including internal ones (dependencies from one of our modules to another of our own modules). Are you saying this is not possible? I.e. once a jar is promoted to automatic module, it is not visible from other automatic modules anymore? Because the alternative doesn't seem workable either: declaring our dependencies as module dependencies (e.g. in a module-info) would not give us the option to have classpath dependencies (or would it?), and thus we would not be able to depend on Lucene... On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 10:08 Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > 2018-02-13 9:44 GMT+01:00 Yoann Rodiere <yoann(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > >> > IMO automatic module names should only be declared after at least some >> basic vetting that these modules will actually work when used as modules. >> If that's not the case, I wouldn't add these headers, as users rightfully >> may consider their presence as endorsement of using them as modules. >> >> If I understood correctly, automatic module names were introduced to >> facilitate the transition to Jigsaw modules. The point was to allow >> projects to give a name to their modules, and, yes, declare them as ready, >> but even if they couldn't be made full modules yet because of their >> dependencies. Declaring a name doesn't mean the module will work, it means >> it will work *when dependencies are fixed*. >> > > > >> If we wait for all of our dependencies to work in a modular environment >> before we give a name to our modules, we may very well never do it because >> of circular dependencies (Infinispan comes to mind: Infinispan-query depends >> on Search for, which depends on ORM, which depends on the Infinispan 2nd >> level cache provider). >> > > default resolver will not allow cycles between modules. > > >> Declaring a full module-info.java is another matter, but as you >> mentioned, we simply can't do that yet because of split packages in Lucene. >> >> Back to naming... It looks good and consistent with the current naming >> our Maven artifacts. In 6, I would probably choose to rename the >> Elasticsearch one to something like >> org.hibernate.search.<backendOrSomething>.elasticsearch, but we still have >> to coin the right term for "<backendOrSomething>", and I would probably >> rename the Maven artifact too, so that can wait. >> >> I think you forgot the JSR 352 integration, but I guess the name would be >> rather obvious: >> - org.hibernate.search.jsr352 >> >> As to non-public APIs, can you confirm automatic modules can access the >> classpath transparently? If so then I agree, no need to name those.... >> Except for the JMS backend: it is unusable without the user extending AbstractJMSHibernateSearchController, >> so this class at least must be exposed to the user. Even if it's just SPI. >> > > UNNAMED module, and all automatic modules read that). > > to configure. For instance for an app with a module-info.java, Maven will > put all dependencies to the module path when invoking javac; if you wanted > to have some deps on the classpath and some on the module path, that'd be > some manual effort. Hence my suggestion to give automatic module names to > all of them and using them on the module path. > > >> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 00:39 Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: >> >>> The split package problem with Lucene won't easily go away, as we >>> can't upgrade Lucene now. >>> >>> But I vaguely remember working with you on that, didn't we figure out >>> that one of the Lucene modules wasn't essential? >>> >>> Either way, that's interesting to experiment with but we can't publish >>> full modules as almost none of our dependencies are ready; they should >>> at least all have an automatic module name. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sanne >>> >>> On 12 February 2018 at 19:43, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > 2018-02-12 19:28 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >>> >> >>> >> On 12 February 2018 at 18:00, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > 2018-02-12 17:55 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Picking automatic module names for Hibernate Search isn't going to >>> be >>> >> >> straight-forward as our two main jars (hibernate-search-engine & >>> >> >> hibernate-search-orm) suffer from split package among them. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> We can't really fix the split package problem without breaking all >>> >> >> users, so if we want to consider that, we can debate it but that >>> will >>> >> >> need to happen at another round as we're doing a minor release, so >>> >> >> let's focus on: >>> >> >> # Which names to pick >>> >> >> # Should we pick the names at all >>> >> >> # Which modules should have a name >>> >> >> >>> >> >> For a great background on the possible strategies and pitfalls I >>> >> >> recommend reading Stephen Colebourne's blog on this subject [1]. >>> >> >> He persuaded me there are good reasons to use the "reverse DNS, the >>> >> >> top level package", however since we have the split package >>> problem we >>> >> >> can't simply go with that. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Still, we can respect the principles he recommends with a small >>> >> >> variation. It's fair to assume that the `org.hibernate.search` >>> prefix >>> >> >> is "ours"; since the nature of the suggestion is focused on making >>> >> >> sure there are no misunderstandings in the community about which >>> names >>> >> >> you can choose - as there is no central authority making sure >>> module >>> >> >> names aren't clashing - we should be fine within Hibernate projects >>> >> >> with any `org.hibernate.X` prefix, as long as we coordinate and >>> reach >>> >> >> an agreement on this list. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> So, I propose we use: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Engine module: >>> >> >> - org.hibernate.search.engine >>> >> >> >>> >> >> ORM integration module: >>> >> >> - org.hibernate.search.orm >>> >> >> >>> >> > Those names sound good to me. >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> JGroups, JMS backends: >>> >> >> [ no automatic module name ? Excepting some "guidelines" in the >>> JMS >>> >> >> module, these are not public API so nobody would benefit from it - >>> >> >> also we think we might want to phase out the name "backend" in the >>> >> >> future ] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Elasticsearch integration module >>> [hibernate-search-elasticsearch.jar]: >>> >> >> - org.hibernate.search.elasticsearch >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Elasticsearch / AWS security integration: >>> >> >> [ no automatic module name: no public API ] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Serialization / Avro >>> >> >> [ no automatic module name: no public API ] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> WDYT? >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > The user may still need to reference those modules when launching a >>> >> > modularized application. Also if they don't directly declare say >>> the JMS >>> >> > backend as a dependence of their own module, they'd still have to >>> >> > specify it >>> >> > via --add-modules, so to resolve these additional modules and add >>> them >>> >> > to >>> >> > the module graph. Hence I'd declare automatic module names for >>> these, >>> >> > too. >>> >> >>> >> Good point, I had not thought that our modules wouldn't be able to >>> >> load other extensions from classpath. >>> >> >>> >> >> We could also pick names for the ones which I've listed as "no >>> public >>> >> >> API" but I see no point: as we're only assigning an "Automatic >>> Module >>> >> >> Name" we won't be able to explicitly state that the other modules >>> >> >> depend on these. So nobody will use them, and things are a bit in >>> flux >>> >> >> anyway in this area because of Hibernate Search 6 plans. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > I don't fully understand this paragraph. >>> >> >>> >> You mostly invalidated it with the previous comment, but what I meant >>> >> is that we can't have the `org.hibernate.search.engine` declare a >>> >> dependency on any implementation module, as we're not adding a >>> >> module-info definition. >>> >> >>> >> >> Another optional altogether: since we have split packages which >>> we'll >>> >> >> have to resolve before we can actually transform these into fully >>> >> >> fledged modules, I think an acceptable position is also to say we >>> >> >> won't be publishing any automatic module name yet. Personally I'm >>> >> >> inclined to go with the names suggested above, at least some others >>> >> >> can start making baby steps, even if it's not all there. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > IMO automatic module names should only be declared after at least >>> some >>> >> > basic >>> >> > vetting that these modules will actually work when used as modules. >>> If >>> >> > that's not the case, I wouldn't add these headers, as users >>> rightfully >>> >> > may >>> >> > consider their presence as endorsement of using them as modules. >>> >> > >>> >> > That said, I can't seem to find split packages between engine and >>> orm. >>> >> > In >>> >> > fact I can launch an application with both of them on the module >>> path >>> >> > just >>> >> > fine. So there may be no problem actually? >>> >> >>> >> Interesting, I'm pretty sure we had some. We had several issues >>> >> resolved over time to resolve them, I never realized we might have >>> >> completed them all. The "line" defining what belongs where is still >>> >> blurry though, we should make sure this won't have future regressions. >>> > >>> > >>> > Where I had problems with split packages was when exploring HSearch @ >>> Java 9 >>> > modules last year was Lucene. In the version used back then (not sure >>> > whether it's still an issue today), there was a split package between >>> > Lucene's core and the util module (the one with the uninverting >>> reader). >>> > >>> > You might take my example project I had created for running ORM as >>> modules >>> > ( >>> https://github.com/gunnarmorling/hibernate-orm-on-java9-modules/compare/o... >>> ) >>> > if you're interested in doing the same for HSearch. IIRC, the Lucene >>> split >>> > package made me give up back then, it's surely worth taking another >>> look >>> > with the current versions in use. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I'll see if we can produce fully fledged module-info descriptors then >>> :) >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> # What I don't like: >>> >> >> For one, that the typical application will need to import both >>> >> >> `org.hibernate.search.engine` and `org.hibernate.search.orm`, and >>> >> >> likely more as well (e.g. Elasticsearch API, Lucene API module is >>> >> >> coming, ..). >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "import" here. But if it's >>> about >>> >> > the >>> >> > user having to declare dependences in their module descriptor to >>> >> > o.h.s.engine and o.h.s.orm modules, you may consider to make the >>> former >>> >> > a >>> >> > transitive dependence of the latter once you add actual module >>> >> > descriptors: >>> >> > >>> >> > module org.hibernate.search.orm { >>> >> > requires transitive org.hibernate.search.engine; >>> >> > ... >>> >> > } >>> >> > >>> >> > That way the user just has to add declare the dependence to >>> o.h.s.orm. >>> >> > That's definitely suitable if APIs in o.h.s.orm use types from >>> engine in >>> >> > their public API signatures. >>> >> >>> >> +1 that's the better option. >>> >> >>> >> My thought was about automatic module names though, but totally >>> >> irrelevant if we go for full modules. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Sanne >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Maybe similar to BOM's today we could publish a module which >>> >> >> statically imports multiple of these, that could be nicer to use >>> but >>> >> >> we risk needing to publish (and document) one for each of a >>> selection >>> >> >> of combinations. So let's not start with such things yet. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks, >>> >> >> Sanne >>> >> >> >>> >> >> [1] >>> http://blog.joda.org/2017/05/java-se-9-jpms-automatic-modules.html >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> hibernate-dev mailing list >>> >> >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hibernate-dev mailing list >>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >>> >> -- >> Yoann Rodiere >> yoann(a)hibernate.org / yrodiere(a)redhat.com >> Software Engineer >> Hibernate NoORM team >> > -- Yoann Rodiere yoann(a)hibernate.org / yrodiere(a)redhat.com Software Engineer Hibernate NoORM team

On 13 February 2018 at 08:44, Yoann Rodiere <yoann(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: Understood and agree. We should add the automatic module names to get people unstuck, and I wouldn't propose this if I didn't have enough confidence that they should work: we have some basic tests. +1, thanks That's the "guidelines" I was referring to in my first email. We could give it a name, so let's suggest one, but I feel like this is not essential as while we suggest people to extend our SPI, there are alternatives to that. I wanted to avoid this one at a first shot as it might be controversial ;) Proposed name: - org.hibernate.search.jms-support Why: # I'd like to avoid using "backend" in the name. # Makes it clear this is the module you want to add when you're into JMS - or at the opposite if your system doesn't care about JMS. IMO the goal of Jigsaw modules is to trim a system from unnecessary stuff, so having the names express what kind of technologies it brings in is most helpful. Thanks, Sanne

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Yoann Rodiere <yoann(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: +1 to find a distinctive name for JGroups and JMS artifacts and same for Lucene and Elasticsearch (either this round or for 6). org.hibernate.search.clustering.jms org.hibernate.search.clustering.jgroups and org.hibernate.search.indexing.lucene org.hibernate.search.indexing.elasticsearch would be my choice as it's very understandable by the end user. It might be an orthogonal discussion so feel free to ignore me :). -- Guillaume

Since the names are about to be set in stone, and there has been some discussion off list, I'd like to talk a bit about the Elasticsearch/Lucene module names... In the Search 6 architecture, these modules really provide a "backend", i.e. a component that actually implements indexing/querying over multiple indexes, but operates "behind" the engine (the engine uses the backend). Essentially the data flow is: Indexing: User => Mapper (user APIs) => Engine => Backend => Disk/network Querying: User <= Mapper (user APIs) <= Engine <= Backend <= Disk/network We discussed it a bit with Sanne (and with Guillaume) and agreed that "backend" was the right word for this part of our architecture. Now, the discussion is about module names, not component names. Still, there are several reasons because of which I'd rather use "org.hibernate.search.backend.<elasticsearch/lucene>": - It is closer to how we will probably refer to the module on a day-to-day basis: I don't know about you, but I'll probably talk about "the Elasticsearch backend" rather than "Elasticsearch indexing" or "the Elasticsearch module". - It is generic enough to cover all of the tasks we delegate to Elasticsearch/Lucene. "org.hibernate.search.indexing.<elasticsearch/lucene>", on the other hand, feels like it's only about indexing, and not querying, maybe not even about defining a schema. - It is consistent with our architecture and APIs in Search 6: - The main component (and entry point) in those modules will be an object implementing BackendImplementor (SPI) - We will actually expose "backends" as part of our Java APIs, for instance to allow users to retrieve the Elasticsearch client, or to query some backend-scoped metadata. - We will also use the word "backend" in the user configuration, where the user will have to define a backend, its type and its options using the "hibernate.search.backends.<backendName>.*" properties - As opposed to the "prefix-less" naming scheme ("org.hibernate.search.<elasticsearch/lucene>"), it makes it easy to infer what the module actually provides to users: the actual implementation behind Hibernate Search, even without extensive knowledge about Hibernate Search. - When listing all the modules of Hibernate Search, it makes it easy to spot which module is about what, and which modules provide the same thing using a different technology: org.hibernate.search.engine org.hibernate.search.orm org.hibernate.search.clustering.jms org.hibernate.search.clustering.jgroups org.hibernate.search.backend.elasticsearch org.hibernate.search.backend.lucene vs: org.hibernate.search.engine org.hibernate.search.orm org.hibernate.search.jms org.hibernate.search.jgroups org.hibernate.search.elasticsearch org.hibernate.search.lucene - When the module name appears in some error message (for instance when a user starts experimenting with Java 9), it will also make it clear which part of Hibernate Search is misconfigured. And that may be important to some users, since not all the people working on an application know the details of every part of the application... Of course, in the meantime in Search 5, there will be some confusion due to the fact "backend" has a different meaning in Search 5. If you are worried about that, I'm not opposed to slightly altering the module names between Search 5 and Search 6: users will have to make changes when migrating anyway. In particular, a lot of APIs will change, some class may be moved to different packages to comply the "no split package" constraint of Java 9, Maven coordinates will change to use the "org.hibernate.search" group ID instead of "org.hibernate", and people using the Lucene backend will have to depend on a new module (both in their Maven dependencies and in their Java 9 module dependencies). So we could just use "org.hibernate.elasticsearch" in Search 5, and switch to "org.hibernate.backend.elasticsearch" in Search 6. It's not even a big deal, since the Elastisearch module is openly advertised as experimental. On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:51 Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: -- Yoann Rodiere yoann(a)hibernate.org / yrodiere(a)redhat.com Software Engineer Hibernate NoORM team

Ok, I surrender. so it's going to be `org.hibernate.search.backend.elasticsearch`. Even if it's not ideal in the context of Hibernate Search 5.x, IMO long term stability is more important for people. For the record I still think this tendency to over-qualify things and add many prefixes should be put under control. I totally understand it makes sense to "us" but please make an effort to look at how people use things: for users this is just "the ES stuff", but whatever they won't care about the prefix anyway :) Remember this though: when you'll want to include include more than just the backend bits in this module you will have resistance against changing the name. Thanks, Sanne On 3 May 2018 at 13:26, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: