Re: Fw: [sca-j] package names

[Simon Nash <NASH@uk.ibm.com>]

Roberto,
The question for Mary was whether or
not there is a constraint from the OASIS perspective on what package names
could be used.  I also gave some reasons for why retaining the existing
names might be desirable, and examples of some similar (not necessarily
identical) previous cases.  There was no intention to imply that the
TC has decided yet that it wishes to retain the existing org.osoa names.

Since the justification for using the
existing package names is to preserve compatibility, this justification
would not apply if incompatible changes were made.  So far this has
not happened.  If it were to happen, the TC would need to decide what
should happen to the package names.  I agree that if incompatible
changes are made, there would be a strong argument for changing the package
names.

    Simon

Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Tel. +44-1962-815156  Fax +44-1962-818999

Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Sent by: Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM

04/03/2008 01:16

To	Simon Nash/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc	Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>, Michael Rowley <mrowley@bea.com>, sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: Fw: [sca-j] package names

Simon Nash wrote:
> Mary,
> I am following up on this discussion on behalf of the OpenCSA sca-j
> co-chairs.  There is now a formal issue open for this (JAVA-28),
with a 
> proposed resolution to leave the Java package names as they are specified
> in the SCA 1.0 input documents submitted to OASIS (i.e., as "org.osoa.sca"
> and "org.osoa.sca.annotations").
>
> [...]
>
> The rationale for leaving the names unchanged is that products are
already 
> available that implement the current package names, and a growing
body of 
> applications is being created that uses the current package names.
> Changing the package names would require all implementing products
and all 
> using applications to make an incompatible change, which would be
very 
> disruptive.
>   

Doesn't this argument assume that the API standardized at OASIS will be
binary-compatible
(even better, source-compatible) with the OSOA one?

If binary compatibility is not preserved, I'd argue that renaming the 
packages would be preferable,
since it would remove any ambiguity on which version of the SCA API an
application requires.

Of course, mandating binary compatibility would severely restrict the 
kind of decisions that
the TC can make.
 
> The JCP has many precedents for how to deal with this situation.  It
is 
> appropriate to look to the JCP for guidance, as this body has a lot
of 
> experience in dealing with Java package name issues.  Over the
years, the 
> JCP has brought many APIs into the JDK that were previously in extension
> packages.  The normal naming convention for APIs in the JDK is
to start 
> package names with "java." and for APIs in extension packages
the 
> convention is to start them with "javax."  However,
when APIs are brought 
> into the JDK from extensions, the existing "javax." names
are not changed 
> to "java." names but are retained unchanged.  This
is because the 
> disruptive impact of package renaming on developers would outweigh
the 
> value of strict naming consistency within the JDK.
>   

Indeed. But those packages are the output of the Java standardization 
process (JCP) and
are included in the JDK in unmodified form.
> In addition to package names starting with "java." and "javax.",
the JDK 
> contains many APIs with other package names such as "org.ietf.",
> "org.omg.", "org.xml.", and "org.w3c.".
 These names were previously 
> created by other "de jure" or "de facto" standards
organizations, and were 
> left unchanged when the APIs were brought into the JDK.
>   

APIs defined externally to the JCP are also incorporated in an unchanged
form and
are effectively required to evolve compatibly.

In my opinion, these conditions are appropriate for an API in final 
form, but not for one subject
to change as part of a normal standardization process.

--Roberto


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU