yes, Jigsaw was on my mind too... > why not go ahead and try to clean it up right away?
> So a strong +1 to clean this up! OK, maybe I should open two issues, one for Lucene and one for Solr, and link existing wip issues to them. Once we start it, these will be blockers for 9.0.0 release I believe (for now I have no idea about the volume of the changes or technical obstacles). Are there any objections or comments? 2020年9月1日(火) 19:34 Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de>: > 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 > >
