How do I export org.apache.logging.log4j from the log4j-api module and then be able to export org.apache.logging.log4j.core from the log4j-core module? My understanding is that exporting a package exports that package and those beneath it. Is that incorrect?
Ralph > On Apr 21, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net> wrote: > > Around what? there is no problem to have multiple packages in multiple > modules depending on each other (if you decide to ship modules at all). Only > split packages is a problem (but this is also a problem for OSGi or code > signing so nobody should really use that anyway) > > Gruss > Bernd > -- > http://bernd.eckenfels.net > ________________________________ > From: Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 10:34:36 PM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [all] Java 9 module names > > I am having a hard time figuring out how Log4j is going to be able to support > this. The API itself is in org.apache.logging.log4j and some packages under > that. All the main implementation is under org.apache.logging.log4j.core. > These obviously overlap. Most of our other jars have packages that are in > org.apache.logging.log4j.xxx where xxx matches the jar name. We aren’t going > to change the API to support modules. > > Is there some reasonable way around this? > > Ralph > >> On Apr 21, 2017, at 6:16 AM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: >> >> On 21 April 2017 at 13:59, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> What happens when there is a API break which necessitates a package name >>> change? >>> I assume that the module name will also need to change to the new >>> super-package. >>> e.g. >>> >>> Commons-Lang4 >>> -> super-package org.apache.commons.lang4 >>> -> module org.apache.commons.lang4 >> >> Yes, thats right. >> >>> AFAICT Commons generally has obvious and unique super-packages for >>> each component. >>> This should make it easier than for larger projects with lots of jars >>> and potentially overlapping package names. >>> >>> However even Commons has some code that uses a different package structure. >>> e.g. NET uses examples as the super-package. >>> This includes working examples that are included in the release. >>> I guess that will have to change (which is probably a good idea anyway). >> >> Yes, as it stands, [net] would be a bad modular citizen, because it >> exposes the "examples" package, and thus prevents any other module >> from using that package. Just move it to >> org.apache.commons.net.examples. >> >> Stephen >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
