[bv-dev] Jigsaw module name

Tue May 16 10:32:06 EDT 2017

+1

2017-05-16 15:00 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:

> Sounds great.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I've been discussing the issue of the module name a bit with Emmanuel
>> and we concluded that a non-binding recommendation in an appendix to
>> the BV 2.0 spec should be alright. I've filed PR
>> https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-spec/pull/174 for it,
>> saying:
>>
>>     "While not specified by this specification, Bean Validation
>> providers are encouraged to use the module name `java.validation`
>> in case they provide the Bean Validation API as a module for the Java
>> Platform Module System (as defined by JSR 376).
>> A mandatory module name - which may be `java.validation` or another
>> one - will be defined in a future revision of this specification."
>>
>> This leaves the door open for choosing another value - and making it
>> mandatory - down the road, while letting 2.0 providers converge on one
>> non-officially sanctioned name for the time being (which is needed for
>> the migration between providers).
>>
>> --Gunnar
>>
>>
>> 2017-05-09 18:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>


-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20170516/a4255cbd/attachment-0001.html