[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Tomoko Uchida updated LUCENE-9499:
----------------------------------
Description:
We have lots of package name conflicts (shared package names) between modules
in the 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.
Also split packages make migrating to the Java 9 module system impossible.
This is the placeholder to fix all package name conflicts in Lucene.
See the dev list thread for moe background.
[https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6496963e89a5e0615e53206429b6843cc5d3e923a2045cc7b7a1eb03%40%3Cdev.lucene.apache.org%3E]
Modules that need be fixed / cleaned up:
- analyzers-common (LUCENE-9317)
- analyzers-icu
- backward-codecs (LUCENE-9318)
- sandbox (LUCENE-9319)
- misc
- (test-framework: this can be excluded for the moment)
Also lucene-core will be heavily affected (some classes needed to be moved into
core, or some classes' and methods' in {{core}} visibility have to be relaxed).
Probably most work would be done in a parallel manner, but conflicts can
happen. If someone want to help out, please open an issue before working and
share your thoughts with me and others.
I set "Fix version" to 9.0 - means once we make a commit here, 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.
was:
We have lots of package name conflicts (shared package names) between modules
in the 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.
Also split packages make migrating to the Java 9 module system impossible.
This is the placeholder to fix all package name conflicts in Lucene.
See the dev list thread for moe background.
[https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6496963e89a5e0615e53206429b6843cc5d3e923a2045cc7b7a1eb03%40%3Cdev.lucene.apache.org%3E]
Modules that need be fixed / cleaned up:
- analyzers-common (LUCENE-9317)
- analyzers-icu
- backward-codecs (LUCENE-9318)
- sandbox (LUCENE-9319)
- misc
- (test-framework: this can be excluded for the moment)
Also lucene-core will be heavily affected (some classes needed to be moved into
core, or some classes' and methods' in {{core}} visibility have to be relaxed).
> Clean up package name conflicts between modules (split packages)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9499
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9499
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: master (9.0)
> Reporter: Tomoko Uchida
> Assignee: Tomoko Uchida
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: master (9.0)
>
>
> We have lots of package name conflicts (shared package names) between modules
> in the 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. Also split packages make migrating to the Java 9 module system
> impossible.
> This is the placeholder to fix all package name conflicts in Lucene.
> See the dev list thread for moe background.
>
> [https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6496963e89a5e0615e53206429b6843cc5d3e923a2045cc7b7a1eb03%40%3Cdev.lucene.apache.org%3E]
> Modules that need be fixed / cleaned up:
> - analyzers-common (LUCENE-9317)
> - analyzers-icu
> - backward-codecs (LUCENE-9318)
> - sandbox (LUCENE-9319)
> - misc
> - (test-framework: this can be excluded for the moment)
> Also lucene-core will be heavily affected (some classes needed to be moved
> into core, or some classes' and methods' in {{core}} visibility have to be
> relaxed).
> Probably most work would be done in a parallel manner, but conflicts can
> happen. If someone want to help out, please open an issue before working and
> share your thoughts with me and others.
> I set "Fix version" to 9.0 - means once we make a commit here, 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.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
