I am reviving this thread as I think we have still don't have *definitive* guideline on how packages & modules should be named.

I am still in favor of having packages named same as modules.
In case of extensions that would be


if it goes for core functionality it can use org.wildfly namespace (for package & module name)

only question that remains is what do we do with maven groupId
I would go with group id
For core:org.wildfly
For extensions: org.wildfly.extension

That way we can also have clean distinction on what is core server and what are extensions.

I am reviving this discussion after chat I had with Eduardo over the weekend on how new functionality for EE extension should be organized.

as logging of #wildfly-dev doesn't work i am pasting transcript here:
emmartins:    "Also we should not use org.wildfly.as package given that wildfly already implies application server so if anything then org.wildfly.concurrent or even better org.wildfly.extension.ee.concurrent"
just logged to chat on this
+ctomc:    sure
org.wildfly.as is in anycase a no-go
emmartins:    y, that was settled
+ctomc:    given that org.wildfly already impls app server :)
but this conncurent stuff?
emmartins:    well, not truly the "as"
+ctomc:    this is part of ee extension isn't it?
emmartins:    thought I saw Jason saying that wildfly could be used for stuff not in the as code base
+ctomc:    where?
emmartins:    for instance stuff like a reusable api
that's really my doubt
will these continue to use org.jboss instead
+ctomc:    afaik the only non-as stuff that should be using org.wildfly ware external projects that are really tightly coupled to wildfly
like jandex
for instance
emmartins:    well, probably metadata could be considered also similar
ejb client
+ctomc:    yup
but that really tightly coupled to AS in any case
hardly usable outside of it
in general there are few cases but not much
emmartins:    to me the "as" would be a safe extension point to future usages
+ctomc:    threre should bo no non-as stuff using org.wildfly package
and org.wildfly.as sounds to me same as
org.as.as :)
bit reduntant ;)
emmartins:    asas is a cool name
means wings in portuguese
+ctomc:    given that we are not top level project we could go one package up ;)
he he he
asas, nice :D
in any case
emmartins:    red bull da-te asas > red bull gives you wings
+ctomc:    wildfly is in general split in two parts
core & extensions
emmartins:    and modules
+ctomc:    modules are dependancies
so not really matter from source code point of view
emmartins:    but I agree to leave these ones untagged as modules, never know what's the future of it
+ctomc:    so basicly core should be using org.wildfly.<name-of-functionality> packe
extensnios should be org.wildfly.extension.<extensnion-name>.<whatever>
yeah module names that existed before should not be renamed
only new ones should go under new "package" name
emmartins:    in this case I already agreed with brian and jason, org.wildfly.ee.concurrent in package, I guess brian also agreed yesterday with same as module name
+ctomc:    does not like it :(
+ctomc:    i talked with brian about this at judcon (as he was writing your reply)
emmartins:    oh really? lol
+ctomc:    yeah i was insisting on rename of packages :)
he just commented on it
i didn't have laptop with me
i think confiusion is based on what exactly is this code part of
is this part of core or extensnio
is this is part of EE extension
or ee subsystem if you like
then imho it should not use org.wildfly.ee
as that would imply that ee is part of core wildfly which we all know it is not
emmartins:    being honest, this code was made for both threads and ee
+ctomc:    given that we want to release wildfly "core" distribtion sometime in future
emmartins:    but I reverted my opinion of using also threads
+ctomc:    threads are part of core
so that is why i ask if this is part of extensnio or not ;)
emmartins:    but then dmlloyd considers ee is already wrapping too much functionality
+ctomc:    and concurrent apis are also bit general so i am not really sure what it should be
emmartins:    this concurrent is truly EE only
+ctomc:    so i would move it to different package
emmartins:    that's the reason why I gave up of reusing threads to manage the low levels resources i.e. thread pools
+ctomc:    but I will leave it to others as this case is bit on the edge
emmartins:    I guess the big question is, do we break ee now, or do we add again more stuff, stuff that is this case is already done 100% independent, has its own  big unit testsuite (250), etc
+ctomc:    break as in spliting package? or break as in break into many extensions?
emmartins:    I was thinking single extension + independent functionality modules
+ctomc:    that makes sense
and if we plan to do that, we should do it asap
emmartins:    well, as long as EE module exports functionality submodules
it can be broken anytime
+ctomc:    true
but it is easier to split it when you have new functionality
and in this case you could have new module that would be in new namespace as it is new functinailty
emmartins:    to split now would mean to consider ee as just a parent maven module?
+ctomc:    but still retain old module names for older stuff
basicly yeah
emmartins:    ee/core , ee/concurrency
+ctomc:    jpa already does that
emmartins:    vs ee + ee-concurrency
ok, I think we captured all the point of views of this arguing
emmartins:    you know what's the next step
+ctomc:    i know ;)
emmartins:    :)
copy paste into wildfly-dev mail list

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Tomaž Cerar <tomaz.cerar@gmail.com> wrote:
would be better fit after all.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry@redhat.com> wrote:
Keep in mind that an extension can define more than one subsystem, and a
module can define more than one extension.

As an example of the latter, org.jboss.as.connector:main uses 3 lines in
the META-INF/services/org.jboss.as.controller.Extension file to define 3
extension impls. Each of those registers a single subsystem.

That same thing could have been done differently by having a single
Extension impl that registered 3 subsystems. If that had been done, the
extension impl would not fit nicely in an org.wildfly.subsystem.<blah>

On 4/29/13 9:18 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> I guess.  Keeping in mind that eventually extensions will (possibly) be
> loaded by assembled module name, so they may have to change again at
> some point.
> On 04/29/2013 09:16 AM, Tomaž Cerar wrote:
>> probably same should also apply to module names.
>> so we would have org.wildfly.subsystem.<name>
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Tomaž Cerar <tomaz.cerar@gmail.com
>> <mailto:tomaz.cerar@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>      Sounds ok,
>>      probably having org.wildfly.extension.<>
>>      that would too much :)
>>      On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David M. Lloyd
>>      <david.lloyd@redhat.com <mailto:david.lloyd@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>          Maybe do:
>>              org.wildfly.subsystem.<blah>
>>          because there will be wildfly stuff which isn't subsystems and which
>>          might have names that conflict.  I'd even suggest
>>          "org.wildfly.as.subsystem..." but that might be too much.
>>          On 04/29/2013 08:58 AM, Tomaž Cerar wrote:
>>           > Hi,
>>           >
>>           > What should be package name for new stuff being added to WildFly?
>>           >
>>           > org.wildfly.<subsystem-name>
>>           > or
>>           > org.wildfly.as <http://org.wildfly.as>
>>          <http://org.wildfly.as>.<subsystem-name>
>>           > or something else?
>>           >
>>           > I would go for org.wildfly.<subsystem-name>
>>           >
>>           >
>>           >
>>           > this mostly applies to new subsystems and as we agreed we
>>          won't rename
>>           > packages for existing code until it break compatibility.
>>           >
>>           >
>>           >
>>           > --
>>           > tomaz
>>           >
>>           >
>>           > _______________________________________________
>>           > wildfly-dev mailing list
>>           > wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>           > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>           >
>>          --
>>          - DML
>>          _______________________________________________
>>          wildfly-dev mailing list
>>          wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>          https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
wildfly-dev mailing list