[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13260704#comment-13260704
]
Andy Seaborne commented on JENA-192:
------------------------------------
I'm currently in favour of cloning the API, that is having com.hp.hpl.jena.*
(c.h.h.j) and also org.apache.jena.* (o.a.j).
We leave c.h.h.j alone (complete compatibility) and making improvements to
o.a.j.
This creates space for change and feedback from users in a way just branching
does not. This is a long, slow process, not a one-time introduction of a new
API.
And a scala one?
And a clojure one?
We can then think about move c.h.h.j to a compatibility module but decide based
on how it goes.
> Jena java package renaming.
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: JENA-192
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-192
> Project: Apache Jena
> Issue Type: Brainstorming
> Components: Jena
> Reporter: Andy Seaborne
>
> This JIRA is for discussion of renaming the package structure.
> What are the pros and cons of renaming the java packaging:
> com.hp.hpl.jena => org.apache.jena?
> The maven artifacts are already "org.apache.jena:jena-ABC"
> See also JENA-190 (delivery) and JENA-191 (modules and build)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
