I tried to poke the related incubator general thread once more asking if
anyone would vote -1 for graduation or release for the short package name,
but I guess mails from non subscribers are refused.
Anyhow, IMHO, if the long name is used, I'd feel it has to be done
consistently, so also in HCON, as that translates to system properties,
both of which suffer from the same namespace collision problems as packages.
And it is way cheaper in HCON.
org.apache.pekko{
...
}
But an unentitled opinion at best.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2022, 12:15 Matthew Benedict de Detrich
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In my opinion I think people are really under-estimating the criticality
> of this point. I did some research on this a few weeks ago and as far as I
> can tell there isn’t a hard rule saying that you must use the org.apache
> prefix however for Pekko to become a top level project it needs to get
> voted on by the relevant PMC and as we are coming to understand unless a
> REALLY good reason is provided this is going to cause quite a lot of
> complications. I don’t want to spend effort changing everything from akka
> to pekko, users then end up relying on this and then we don’t get the
> necessary votes for Pekko to become a top level project and then we have to
> change from pekko to org.apache.pekko. This is already incredibly risky by
> itself.
>
> And to be honest in my opinion, none of the reasons that have been
> provided constitutes as a good reason. The only thing I can think of is if
> that package name is critical in maintaining compatibility (i.e. you HAVE
> to have that package name otherwise things just don’t work). Since Pekko is
> forced to rename from akka due to trademark reasons, we can’t even fulfil
> this anyways.
>
> --
> Matthew de Detrich
> Aiven Deutschland GmbH
> Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin
> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
>
> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
> m: +491603708037
> w: aiven.io e: [email protected]
> On 6. Nov 2022 at 11:00 +0100, Justin Mclean <[email protected]>,
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > > The difference between may or will is what is this hinges on.
> >
> > I can not predict how the IPMC would vote on this. If the project comes
> up with a good reason why they need to use a short name, it would most
> likely be accepted, but as far as I know, no other project has gone down
> this path. I would suggest you use the long name, but that is just a
> suggestion and the project doesn’t have to follow that suggestion.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Justin
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
>
