[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13260804#comment-13260804
]
Andy Seaborne commented on JENA-192:
------------------------------------
Yes - it would/could be a separate jar. (Last line of my comment - wasn't very
clear)
The point about same name classes is very important and suggests to me
splitting sooner, or even immediately. (and, yes, one of the internal classes
I want to rename is "Query")
We still need to provide compatibility to keep our own support costs down.
Maybe the best way is:
1/ Move chhj-api into it's own module ASAP.
This is still included as standard in all builds.
2/ Start with oaj-api by copy/rename of chhj and start evolving it there.
People can choose which to use by switching jar.
The normal dependency is at this point the chhj API.
3/ Release the oaj API
People can use by excluding chhj and including oaj.
4/ See how things are going and decide how quickly to deprecate chhj.
I'm looking for a migration path that does not have points where things are "in
flux" to the point where a relase for bug fixes or just general maintainence
can't be done.
> 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
