[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1524?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16446702#comment-16446702
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on JENA-1524:
--------------------------------------
Github user christopher-johnson commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/401
In working with the automatic modules, I have also found a split
with`org.apache.jena.atlas`. This is between `org.apache.jena.arq` and
`org.apache.jena.base`.
Would it make sense to create a separate project and artifact for
`org.apache.jena.atlas`?
I realize that this sort of package refactoring is a slippery slope.
However, the new module idiom was to enforce a semantic relationship between
the project structure, the artifact(s) it produces and the package(s) it
provides. I have found furthermore that it is consistent to name a project in
accordance with the qualified module name (without the top level group). So,
the traditional "-" naming semantic could be replaced in archives with a "."
> org.apache.jena.system is split by org.apache.jena.arq and
> org.apache.jena.core
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JENA-1524
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1524
> Project: Apache Jena
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Jena
> Affects Versions: Jena 3.7.0
> Reporter: Christopher Johnson
> Priority: Major
>
> a JPMS module cannot require both org.apache.jena.arq and
> org.apache.jena.core since org.apache.jena.system can be read from both.
> This cannot be resolved with --patch-module since arq and core provide
> different implementations. Suggestion is to make a distinction by renaming
> system to sys in either one.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
