David,
On 07/12/17 13:14, David Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote:
This thread is getting a little off-topic but...
Getting it back on topic again:
Proposal for the standard module name: java.net.httpclient. Proposal for the
standard package name: java.net.http.
I think it would be better if both the module and the package were
"java.net.http.client", for two reasons. Firstly, it is important to
align the package and module name whenever possible; I don't think
there's a compelling reason here (or most anywhere else) not to do so.
Secondly, it is not unreasonable to expect that the future may bring
other HTTP-related APIs that are not necessarily client-specific.
Relatedly, it may be wise to rename "HttpRequest" and "HttpResponse"
to "HttpClientRequest" and "HttpClientResponse", respectively.
I agree that symmetry between the module name and package name is
desirable. If the module / package name contains `client`, then it is
effectively redundant in the type name ( unless there are many types
being imported from other unrelated HTTP libraries ).
The JEP does make a proposal on the module and package name, but I think
a discussion on naming will be needed. I'm not sure that we need to
decide that now, but your point has been noted.
-Chris.
