[jboss-as7-dev] Modules and hidden packages

Wed Apr 3 11:48:23 EDT 2013

I got confused for a while but here what I understand now:

- you do support internal packages by explicitly listing them in the
  module.xml
- you would like a fully convention base solution (like _internal) to
  mark a package as private to avoid the maintenance of this manual list
- I think I'd prefer a feature allowing me to define a glob or similar
  pattern in the module.xml to signal the list of private packages in a
  concise, maintainable and portable way

My proposal is a tiny bit more costly (you need to define the glob in
module.xml once) but is more portable across the technologies we
integrate with.

Emmanuel

On Wed 2013-04-03 10:37, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> Like I said we already support private packages for the cases where the 
> user (or integrator rather) doesn't mind spelling out those packages in 
> the module.xml.
> 
> I'm just talking about doing this on an automatic basis for certain 
> specially named packages so that this part is not necessary.  It's 
> sounding like a lot of folks don't care for the idea though.
> 
> I had wanted to support the use of a package-level annotation but there 
> seems to be no way to do this that doesn't kill perf... oh well.
> 
> I don't think this is something that would really impact customers or 
> end users in any way though, unless we use a common package name 
> segment.  Is that what you're getting at?
> 
> On 04/02/2013 11:55 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> > For "my" modules I am more than happy to talk to customers if they use private / impl packages. We did categorize them for that very reason and it took us a lot of effort. I imagine we would enforce it in a major version shift anyways, so it worked be nice for modules to support that even if for your modules you would not want to use the feature.
> >
> > On 2 avr. 2013, at 18:37, "David M. Lloyd" <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The problem is compatibility - because such packages are shared today,
> >> making them suddenly be unshared on a global basis would likely break
> >> things.  I would however be in favor of adding *._private.* support, or
> >> using another unlikely-to-exist option (_internal was suggested).
> >>
> >> The reason for the underscore is twofold: first, "private" is a reserved
> >> word in Java so it can't be used from Java programs; second, it is not
> >> used by any projects that I am aware of at the moment, so the likelihood
> >> of breakage is basically zero.
> >>
> >> On 04/02/2013 11:29 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> >>> A few projects already use *.impl.* or *.private.* packages. Any reasons to use this unnatural (for Java) _private prefix? Could that be made a customizable Glob or regexp like pattern in the xml dd.
> >>>
> >>> On 2 avr. 2013, at 18:14, Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Our logging IDs are already in the wild and are keys to knowledge base
> >>>> entries and google results. Is changing these a case where we are
> >>>> imposing pain on users in order to solve our own internal process problems?
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4/2/13 10:47 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> >>>>> There is a mechanism in JBoss Modules to support packages which are not
> >>>>> visible to consumers of a module.  The idea is to come up with an easy
> >>>>> convention so that we can put module-private APIs and classes in one
> >>>>> place that is visible from multiple packages, without exposing or
> >>>>> documenting these packages.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Until 1.2, the only way available to do this for statically defined
> >>>>> modules was to add an export filter in your module.xml via the <exports>
> >>>>> element to exclude the specific package directories that are hidden.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Starting in 1.2, you can also create a series of packages whose first
> >>>>> segment is "_private".  These packages will automatically be excluded
> >>>>> from the exported paths list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What I'd like to propose is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) For any given module, all generated JavaDoc should exclude packages
> >>>>> under the _private hierarchy.
> >>>>> 2) For any module which does i18n logging, all logging messages should
> >>>>> be consolidated in one or more (but preferably one) interface(s) stored
> >>>>> in a public _private.org.yourproject.YourInterface.
> >>>>> 3) Once the new name is announced, I think we should break up our main
> >>>>> logging IDs into per-subsystem categories.  For example, "XXEE" for EE,
> >>>>> "XXEJB" for EJB, etc., each with their own numerical space and message
> >>>>> interface.  These two changes should put an end to our log message ID
> >>>>> fragmentation problems and give us a (one-time only!) chance to clean up
> >>>>> this mess.
> >>>>> 4) Projects that wish to exploit this mechanism can do so, noting that
> >>>>> they should use "_private.org.yourproject" as a package prefix instead
> >>>>> of just putting things directly under "_private" (to avoid conflicts
> >>>>> when JARs are used on a flat class path).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Flame on!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Brian Stansberry
> >>>> Principal Software Engineer
> >>>> JBoss by Red Hat
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> >>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> >>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> - DML
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> >> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
> 
> 
> -- 
> - DML
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev