Hi, You can have both in same JAR file. No need to split releases, this would confuse users even more. For some stuff you just have to make sure that both usage possibilities are available, but in general the Gradle build should switch to "module" compilation mode, so all dependencies are checked by javac and the output is a module-compliant JAR file. The only special case I know of regarding discovery and usage of JAR files is Service provider files: They need to be in META-INF/services for classpath use cases, but they also need to be in module descriptor for module projects.
If we use the gradle module plugin, we must make sure that the render-javadocs task also uses modulepath not classpath. I have no idea about ECJ 😊 But when adding module descriptors, we need at least a basic test that the module descriptors work, services work and a basic project compiles and builds (kinda integration test). 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: Monday, November 30, 2020 11:51 AM > To: Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Approach towards solving split package issues? > > I think it'd be fun to switch to the module system at some point. > Perhaps offer dual release, initially (modules + JARs). > > Dawid > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:37 AM Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I wanted to just add: > > We also need some testing of the artifacts! Our standard test environment > can't do testing of module system. This needs some "integration" tests: A > project using the JAR files on module path - no classpath. And here it must be > JAR files, the non-packaged class files won't work as far as I remember. > > > > When doing this, you will figure out that the SPI classes (codecs, > > analyzers) > won't work on module path. Because we do not only need to open the > packages in our modules, the contents on META-INF/servisices need to be > added as "native services" to the module info. Every module-info file must > list > all class names that are services explicit. The META-INF/service files are not > read in module mode: > > > > See this blog post: https://blog.frankel.ch/migrating-serviceloader-java-9- > module-system/ > > > > I am not sure if JDEPS figures this out automatically! > > > > 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: Saturday, November 28, 2020 9:52 PM > > > To: Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > > > Subject: Re: Approach towards solving split package issues? > > > > > > I'm not an expert on modules either - haven't had the need to use > > > them. But then: it's part of the fun to discover new things. I don't > > > see the reason why we shouldn't do it (on master). > > > > > > Dawid > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 4:04 PM Tomoko Uchida > > > <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On second thought... > > > > Adding module-info.java to all sub-modules seems to be a relatively > simple > > > task (though it might involve laborious work), however, properly > maintaining > > > them would not be so trivial I suspect. I'm not sure developers (including > me) > > > are ready for the module system. Introducing it right now could put > > > another > > > burden on us? > > > > > > > > I'm not an expert in this area. What do you think? > > > > > > > > Tomoko > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020年11月26日(木) 19:48 Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com>: > > > >> > > > >> I think this sounds good! > > > >> D. > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:20 PM Tomoko Uchida > > > >> <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > The check could be implemented (crudely) by looking at java > > > >> > > sourceSets, scanning which folders *.java files live in (packages) > > > >> > > and > > > >> > > then checking for conflicts at the top-level project? > > > >> > > > > >> > I opened LUCENE-9604 some days ago, I've done nothing yet for it. > > > >> > > > > >> > Maybe we can add a precommit check to find split packages using > Gradle > > > APIs, but - how about having module-info.java now instead of an ad-hoc > > > temporary solution (though I don't know if there is another issue to be > > > considered)? > > > >> > As a starter, we could open up (export) all existing packages... > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 2020年11月12日(木) 0:51 Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com>: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Thanks Tomoko! > > > >> >> > > > >> >> The check could be implemented (crudely) by looking at java > > > >> >> sourceSets, scanning which folders *.java files live in (packages) > > > >> >> and > > > >> >> then checking for conflicts at the top-level project? > > > >> >> > > > >> >> The test framework needs to be package-split to see core internals? > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Dawid > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 4:09 PM Tomoko Uchida > > > >> >> <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > I closed LUCENE-9499, which means we now have no split packages > in > > > lucene (except for test-framework). > > > >> >> > Please keep in mind we still don't have any static > analysis/validations to > > > prevent someone from adding another package name conflicts between > > > modules. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > 2020年11月5日(木) 19:38 Tomoko Uchida > > > <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com>: > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Hi, > > > >> >> >> please review LUCENE-9600, this cleans up split packages in > > > >> >> >> "misc" > > > module and makes some refactoring on classes in lucene/misc to keep > > > lucene/core unchanged. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Tomoko > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> 2020年10月24日(土) 19:25 Tomoko Uchida > > > <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com>: > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> Hi, > > > >> >> >>> please review LUCENE-9319. This tries to resolve package name > > > conflicts between "sandbox" and "core" modules. > > > >> >> >>> Looks like many eyeballs are needed for cleaning up our sandbox. > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> Tomoko > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> 2020年10月18日(日) 0:36 Tomoko Uchida > > > <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com>: > > > >> >> >>>> > > > >> >> >>>> Hi, > > > >> >> >>>> please review LUCENE-9318, this refactors backward-codecs > module > > > (packages are renamed). > > > >> >> >>>> I'm going to merge it into the master after waiting a week or > > > >> >> >>>> so > if > > > there is no objection/feedback. > > > >> >> >>>> > > > >> >> >>>> Tomoko > > > >> >> >>>> > > > >> >> >>>> > > > >> >> >>>> 2020年9月3日(木) 22:35 Tomoko Uchida > > > <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com>: > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> I also opened SOLR-14826 as the placeholder. I'm not fully > > > >> >> >>>>> sure > of > > > its priority but at least Alexandre expressed an interest in fixing it > > > for Solr, > > > thanks. > > > >> >> >>>>> If there is someone who wants to take the ownership, please > feel > > > free to join. I will leave it there until LUCENE-9499 is done anyway. > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> 2020年9月3日(木) 0:12 Tomoko Uchida > > > <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com>: > > > >> >> >>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>> I opened LUCENE-9499 as the umbrella. > > > >> >> >>>>>> I set "Fix version" to 9.0 - means once we make a commit on > it, > > > this will be a blocker for release 9.0.0. (I don't think the changes > > > should be > > > delivered across two major releases; all changes have to be out at once > > > in a > > > major release.) If there are any objections or concerns, please leave > comments. > > > For now I have no idea about the total volume of changes or technical > obstacles > > > that have to be handled. > > > >> >> >>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>> About Solr - do we really need to fix split packages? Solr > > > >> >> >>>>>> is a > > > server app, the benefits seem to be smaller than Lucene (a library) for > > > me. > I'd > > > like to hear opinions/thoughts from others. > > > >> >> >>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>> Tomoko > > > >> >> >>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>> 2020年9月2日(水) 9:05 Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com>: > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>> +1 to fixing and +1 to doing it in a major release. > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:32 PM Adrien Grand > > > <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> +1 Changing packages of many classes should be done in a > > > major. > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:50 PM Tomoko Uchida > > > <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to make sure, could I confirm "when the changes will > be > > > out"... > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Resolving split package issues should break backward > > > compatibility (changing package names and moving classes from one > module to > > > another modules). So we have just two options, we can have these changes > > > only on major releases - 9.0.0 or 10.0.0; we cannot release such changes > > > at > > > minor versions. Is that correct? > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Tomoko > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> 2020年9月1日(火) 22:08 Tomoko Uchida > > > <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com>: > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > As I recall one issue was around where to put analysis > > > packages? > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> It's LUCENE-9317. I had worked on it before, you can see > > > what changes will be needed for analyzers-common (and core). > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2020年9月1日(火) 22:00 Michael Sokolov > > > <msoko...@gmail.com>: > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm in favor - there may be some difficult choices > though. As > > > I recall > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> one issue was around where to put analysis packages? I > > > forget the > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> details, but there was some pretty strong feeling that > you > > > should have > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> a functioning system with core only. However some > basic > > > analysis tools > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> are required for that, while most of our analyzers and > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> so > on > > > are in a > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> separate analysis module. Perhaps we will need to move > > > some basic > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> analyzers out of com.amazon.lucene.analysis? Or the > > > reverse - move all > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> the analysis code into the analysis module and > acknowledge > > > that it is > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> a fundamental dependency (more essential than core, > > > really). > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:26 AM Tomoko Uchida > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > 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 > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- > > > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > > > h...@lucene.apache.org > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> -- > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Adrien > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>>>> -- > > > >> >> >>>>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > > >> >> >>>>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) > > > >> >> > > > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> >> 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 > > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
