Hi, The biggest issue is that split packages make migrating to the Java 9 module system impossible. It's not allowed to have same package name (with classes) in different JAR files.
Some of those require to open up visibility of classes. Some split packages issues were done because of package private access, which is very bad between JAR files. This also affects the test framework, although this is not such a big deal (I would exclude that for now), because you would never run UNIT tests inside a module system, only integration tests. So a strong +1 to clean this up! Uwe ----- Uwe Schindler Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen https://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -----Original Message----- > From: Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 9:22 AM > To: Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Approach towards solving split package issues? > > This is a big headache for many things. I wouldn't mind doing this > even for 9x. This is a major release, why not go ahead and try to > clean it up right away? > > Dawid > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:50 PM Tomoko Uchida > <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello devs, > > > > we have lots of package name conflicts (shared package names) between > modules in the Lucene/Solr source tree. It is not only annoying for devs/users > but also indeed bad practice since Java 9 (according to my understanding), and > we already have some problems with Javadocs due to these splitted packages > as some of us would know. I'm curious about the issue from a while ago. My > questions are, Q1: How can we solve the issue in an organized way? Q2: How > many of us really have interests about that? > > > > To break down Q1, > > - A JIRA for building a grand design and organizing sub tasks is needed? We > have a couple of issues (e.g. LUCENE-9317 and LUCENE-9319) about it and I > had been playing around them before; but I feel like an umbrella ticket would > be needed. > > - When to start and what's the target version to be out? My feeling is that > after cutting branch_9x is the right moment to start and 10.0.0 is suitable > for > the target, does this make sense? > > - Are there any other tasks/concerns to be considered except for just > renaming packages? > > > > Regarding Q2, > > I know some of us have deep knowledge and thoughts in this topic, but for > now I am not sure how many of you have the will to give help or take time for > that. > > It can't be a one-man effort. The more people understand and can contribute > to the build, the more healthy it will be. (I borrowed this phrase from Gradle > build issue LUCENE-9077). > > > > I don't intend to rush into making a decision, my purpose here is to collect > information to see if I can handle it before opening a JIRA. > > > > Thanks, > > Tomoko > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
