Re: Fw: [sca-j] package names

[Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>]

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