[wildfly-dev] package name change a good idea?

[David M. Lloyd]

As maintainer of really a lot of jboss-* projects, I can say I don't 
have any plans to change their package names until/unless a substantial 
compatibility-breaking change is already necessary.  For JBoss Logging 
in particular I expect to maintain compatibility for the foreseeable future.

On 05/02/2013 07:59 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
> But doesn't it make it much harder for EAP 6.0 -> Wildfly upstream?
>
> Also, what about jboss-logging et. al.?  Will they be renamed and
> packages changed?  If so, this creates a headache for projects that
> depend on those libraries.  For example, I'd want future resteasy
> releases to work with both AS 7.1 and Wildfly.  I'd have to write an
> abstraction layer for any old jboss utility library I reference so my
> code would work between as7 and wildfly.
>
> On 5/2/2013 8:17 AM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>> No. WildFly will be the upstream for a future release of EAP. When that
>> happens, those classes, in the existing org.wildfly packages, will be
>> used in EAP.
>>
>> This is conceptually no different than cases where packages like
>> org.apache appear in EAP. EAP is a product that is built from a variety
>> of upstream projects. WildFly is one of those upstream projects. This
>> was the case before the rename as well; the project fka JBoss AS was
>> just one of the upstream projects in EAP.
>>
>> On 5/2/13 7:10 AM, Jaromir Hamala wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> does it mean the same classes will be under different packages in EAP
>>> and WildFly? Wouldn't this make a transition from WildFly to EAP harder?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jaromir
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tomaž Cerar <tomaz.cerar at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:tomaz.cerar at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       We never said we are going to be renaming existing packages.
>>>       Especially because we don't want to break compatibly or make back
>>>       porting harder.
>>>
>>>       What we did agree on is that new stuff should be in new package names.
>>>       Old packages could be renamed only when the got some big
>>>       upgrade/change that would break compatibility anyway.
>>>
>>>       --
>>>       tomaz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Bill Burke <bburke at redhat.com
>>>       <mailto:bburke at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>           Are you sure a package name change is a good idea?  Won't it make it
>>>           harder to pull/push changes upstream and downstream?  And create
>>>           additional work for those who already are the bottleneck in the
>>>           release
>>>           process?  What does Fedora/RHEL do?
>>>           --
>>>           Bill Burke
>>>           JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>           http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>>           _______________________________________________
>>>           wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>           wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>           https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>       wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>       wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>       https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
>>> there is nothing left to take away.”
>>> Antoine de Saint Exupéry
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
- DML