Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Abhishek Tiwari-2
Hi all,

In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is it a
mandatory requirement or good to have?

The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have migrated to
use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
sources.

Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep gobblin.*
package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
incompatibility.

Regards,
Abhishek
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Roman Shaposhnik
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
> about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is it a
> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>
> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have migrated to
> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
> sources.
>
> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep gobblin.*
> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
> incompatibility.

You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
have a really,
really, really good reason of why you can't do that.

Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
question will be
asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
still using
something other than o.a.

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

John D. Ament-2
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
> > about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
> it a
> > mandatory requirement or good to have?
> >
> > The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have migrated
> to
> > use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
> > project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
> > sources.
> >
> > Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
> > renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
> gobblin.*
> > package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
> > incompatibility.
>
> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
> have a really,
> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>
>
I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN fact, last
time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and doesn't
have any actual naming requirements.


> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
> question will be
> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
> still using
> something other than o.a.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Von Gosling
In reply to this post by Roman Shaposhnik
> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
> question will be
> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
> still using
> something other than o.a.


In fact, Apache RocketMQ Community has ever struggle with this issue. Consider more than 100 subsidiary corporations and 1000+ applications using rocketmq 3.x version(before incubator, not naming org.apache.*), we are not planning to change the package originally until some new version changed dramatically. On the other hand, we resort to maven shade to workaround for backwards incompatibility. So, I are very pleased to introduce this way for guys, if we hope to avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards incompatibility :-)



Best Regards
Von Gosling




> 在 2017年8月3日,08:54,Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]> 写道:
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is it a
>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>>
>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have migrated to
>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
>> sources.
>>
>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep gobblin.*
>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
>> incompatibility.
>
> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
> have a really,
> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>
> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
> question will be
> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
> still using
> something other than o.a.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Roman Shaposhnik
In reply to this post by John D. Ament-2
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:13 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
>> > about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
>> it a
>> > mandatory requirement or good to have?
>> >
>> > The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have migrated
>> to
>> > use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
>> > project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
>> > sources.
>> >
>> > Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
>> > renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
>> gobblin.*
>> > package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
>> > incompatibility.
>>
>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
>> have a really,
>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>>
>>
> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN fact, last
> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and doesn't
> have any actual naming requirements.

I'm not a policy wonk, but for every single podling I've witnessed this
has been a very strong bias to be in o.a namespace.

Speaking as an IPMC member I would like to see new projects migrate
into o.a namespace unless there's a really good reason not to.

Or to put it another way, if you want to avoid threads like this one:
   http://markmail.org/message/2bsrtgckuuihhnv4
during your graduation VOTE -- it is better to think about rename now.

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Andy Seaborne-4
On 03/08/17 05:13, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:13 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
>>> it a
>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>>>>
>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have migrated
>>> to
>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
>>>> sources.
>>>>
>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
>>> gobblin.*
>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
>>>> incompatibility.
>>>
>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
>>> have a really,
>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN fact, last
>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and doesn't
>> have any actual naming requirements.
>
> I'm not a policy wonk, but for every single podling I've witnessed this
> has been a very strong bias to be in o.a namespace.
>
> Speaking as an IPMC member I would like to see new projects migrate
> into o.a namespace unless there's a really good reason not to.
>
> Or to put it another way, if you want to avoid threads like this one:
>     http://markmail.org/message/2bsrtgckuuihhnv4
> during your graduation VOTE -- it is better to think about rename now.

Jena was in a similar position with the main APIs under non o.a package
spaces.

We waited until a major version came along and that was several years
after graduation.  While it had always been the intent to change, we
could see that there was going to be major version hop due to othe
factors and we didn't want to do it twice. We did move non-API code
under o.a much earlier on an piecemeal basis.

Jena users also have data with URI naming based on host names from our
origins in HP. We have not moved those to a.o names but encourage
migration though outputting some warnings when it is encountered and can
easily changed.

I think it sends a positive signal to new contributors to make the
package change but it isn't always practical to do so by graduation.
The user community is already impacted by moving the mailing lists and
web sites etc.

For JVM-related projects, the maven coordinates change on entering
incubation. That is a strong enough signal.

     Andy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Greg Stein-4
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Andy Seaborne <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 03/08/17 05:13, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:13 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
>>>>> wondering
>>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
>>>>>
>>>> it a
>>>>
>>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have migrated
>>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
>>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
>>>>> sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
>>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
>>>>>
>>>> gobblin.*
>>>>
>>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
>>>>> incompatibility.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
>>>> have a really,
>>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN fact,
>>> last
>>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and doesn't
>>> have any actual naming requirements.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not a policy wonk, but for every single podling I've witnessed this
>> has been a very strong bias to be in o.a namespace.
>>
>> Speaking as an IPMC member I would like to see new projects migrate
>> into o.a namespace unless there's a really good reason not to.
>>
>> Or to put it another way, if you want to avoid threads like this one:
>>     http://markmail.org/message/2bsrtgckuuihhnv4
>> during your graduation VOTE -- it is better to think about rename now.
>>
>
> Jena was in a similar position with the main APIs under non o.a package
> spaces.
>
> We waited until a major version came along and that was several years
> after graduation.  While it had always been the intent to change, we could
> see that there was going to be major version hop due to othe factors and we
> didn't want to do it twice. We did move non-API code under o.a much earlier
> on an piecemeal basis.
>
> Jena users also have data with URI naming based on host names from our
> origins in HP. We have not moved those to a.o names but encourage migration
> though outputting some warnings when it is encountered and can easily
> changed.
>
> I think it sends a positive signal to new contributors to make the package
> change but it isn't always practical to do so by graduation. The user
> community is already impacted by moving the mailing lists and web sites etc.
>
> For JVM-related projects, the maven coordinates change on entering
> incubation. That is a strong enough signal.


Apache Subversion created a new org.apache.subversion API, and then rebuilt
our old org.tigris API on top of that. The old API is deprecated but still
available. It was also a great chance to refine the API after feedback from
users, and to drop ugly approaches. Much cleaner.

I'd definitely recommend constructing a new API within the org.apache
namespace, and deprecating the old. If you can't do it by graduation, then
get it on the roadmap as a high priority. Keep the old around as (say) a
separate compatibility package, layered onto the new API/naming.

Cheers,
-g
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Shane Curcuru-2
In reply to this post by John D. Ament-2
John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:

> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were wondering
>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
>> it a
>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>>>
>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have migrated
>> to
>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
>>> sources.
>>>
>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
>> gobblin.*
>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
>>> incompatibility.
>>
>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
>> have a really,
>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>>
>>
> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN fact, last
> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and doesn't
> have any actual naming requirements.

John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that it's
an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good reason
otherwise.

Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in the
context of your software product?

In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
external API that most users would call:

>> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
>> question will be
>> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
>> still using
>> something other than o.a.

That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or things
that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those I
could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for compatibility
or other reasons.

But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary Gobblin
classes that users integrating the code into their application?  That
should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.

Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.

Thanks for raising the question early!

>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.

--

- Shane
  https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Alex Harui-2
From the peanut gallery:

Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or does
the IPMC and after graduation, the board?

Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache.  We felt
backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason".  It was way more
important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move to the
Apache versions of Flex.  Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there isn't
really a shading option.

On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache projects
to have packages starting with "com.".  Flex's packages start with "mx" or
"spark" (the component set names).

Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe org.somethingOtherThanApache)
should be changed as soon as possible/practical
2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes

My 2 cents,
-Alex

On 8/3/17, 5:42 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]>
>>>wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
>>>>wondering
>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
>>> it a
>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>>>>
>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have
>>>>migrated
>>> to
>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
>>>> sources.
>>>>
>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
>>> gobblin.*
>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
>>>> incompatibility.
>>>
>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
>>> have a really,
>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN fact,
>>last
>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and doesn't
>> have any actual naming requirements.
>
>John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that it's
>an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good reason
>otherwise.
>
>Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in the
>context of your software product?
>
>In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
>external API that most users would call:
>
>>> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
>>> question will be
>>> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
>>> still using
>>> something other than o.a.
>
>That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or things
>that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those I
>could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for compatibility
>or other reasons.
>
>But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary Gobblin
>classes that users integrating the code into their application?  That
>should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
>
>Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
>suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
>reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.
>
>Thanks for raising the question early!
>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>
>--
>
>- Shane
>  
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach
>e.org%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fresources&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef18c5e74b0141378
>79a08d4da6d0e5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363736093056
>90124&sdata=OyrEoidSvoONvFJksGYjhhz%2FatAd4b%2FyjmHcfoGeI%2B0%3D&reserved=
>0
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Julian Hyde-3
It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project names its java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s mainly the project’s discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its adoption curve is an important consideration.

Most projects that enter the incubator are early on the adoption curve. Their future users outnumber their current users. The earlier these projects make the change to org.apache, the fewer people they will ultimately impact. It seems that gobblin is in this category.

A few projects, such as Flex, are already near the top of their adoption curve. The cost/benefit of renaming is not as compelling.

Julian


> On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> From the peanut gallery:
>
> Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or does
> the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
>
> Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache.  We felt
> backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason".  It was way more
> important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move to the
> Apache versions of Flex.  Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there isn't
> really a shading option.
>
> On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache projects
> to have packages starting with "com.".  Flex's packages start with "mx" or
> "spark" (the component set names).
>
> Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
> 1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe org.somethingOtherThanApache)
> should be changed as soon as possible/practical
> 2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 8/3/17, 5:42 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>> John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
>>>>> wondering
>>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
>>>> it a
>>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have
>>>>> migrated
>>>> to
>>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
>>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
>>>>> sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
>>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
>>>> gobblin.*
>>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
>>>>> incompatibility.
>>>>
>>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
>>>> have a really,
>>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN fact,
>>> last
>>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and doesn't
>>> have any actual naming requirements.
>>
>> John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that it's
>> an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good reason
>> otherwise.
>>
>> Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in the
>> context of your software product?
>>
>> In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
>> external API that most users would call:
>>
>>>> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
>>>> question will be
>>>> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
>>>> still using
>>>> something other than o.a.
>>
>> That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or things
>> that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those I
>> could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for compatibility
>> or other reasons.
>>
>> But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary Gobblin
>> classes that users integrating the code into their application?  That
>> should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
>>
>> Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
>> suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
>> reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.
>>
>> Thanks for raising the question early!
>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Roman.
>>
>> --
>>
>> - Shane
>>
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach>
>> e.org <http://e.org/>%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fresources&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef18c5e74b0141378
>> 79a08d4da6d0e5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363736093056
>> 90124&sdata=OyrEoidSvoONvFJksGYjhhz%2FatAd4b%2FyjmHcfoGeI%2B0%3D&reserved=
>> 0
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Shane Curcuru-2
In reply to this post by Alex Harui-2
Alex Harui wrote on 8/3/17 10:37 AM:

> From the peanut gallery:
>
> Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or does
> the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
>
> Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache.  We felt
> backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason".  It was way more
> important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move to the
> Apache versions of Flex.  Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there isn't
> really a shading option.
>
> On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache projects
> to have packages starting with "com.".  Flex's packages start with "mx" or
> "spark" (the component set names).

This is the only significant point for me.  I would be -1 on TLPs
continuing to ship a com.company.* package for the primary code for the
project

*If* there is a long history of use and expectations of compatibility,
and *if* the package names are not reverse-domains but are just
component names, then that's fine to keep the package names.

>
> Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
> 1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe org.somethingOtherThanApache)
> should be changed as soon as possible/practical

Any packages that use the reversed domain name prefix.

> 2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes

It's still a best practice to use org.apache.*, unless the package
prefix is long-used and is based on component or functionality names.


--

- Shane
  https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

John D. Ament-2
In reply to this post by Shane Curcuru-2
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:42 AM Shane Curcuru <[hidden email]> wrote:

> John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
> wondering
> >>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
> >> it a
> >>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
> >>>
> >>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have migrated
> >> to
> >>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
> >>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
> >>> sources.
> >>>
> >>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
> >>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
> >> gobblin.*
> >>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
> >>> incompatibility.
> >>
> >> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
> >> have a really,
> >> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
> >>
> >>
> > I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN fact,
> last
> > time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and doesn't
> > have any actual naming requirements.
>
> John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that it's
> an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good reason
> otherwise.
>

Sure, its here [1].  There are two TLPs that I know have this issue -
Polygene and Groovy.  There's a few others as well, I'm sure.

[1]:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/15550f5bf622ae3070b558505c8a0fd0ce3b23df3012d57de8b6d9f3@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E


>
> Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in the
> context of your software product?
>
> In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
> external API that most users would call:
>
> >> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
> >> question will be
> >> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
> >> still using
> >> something other than o.a.
>
> That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or things
> that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those I
> could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for compatibility
> or other reasons.
>
> But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary Gobblin
> classes that users integrating the code into their application?  That
> should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
>
> Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
> suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
> reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.
>
> Thanks for raising the question early!
>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
>
> --
>
> - Shane
>   https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Andy Seaborne-4
In reply to this post by Julian Hyde-3


On 03/08/17 15:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
> It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project names its java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s mainly the project’s discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its adoption curve is an important consideration.

+1

> Most projects that enter the incubator are early on the adoption curve. Their future users outnumber their current users. The earlier these projects make the change to org.apache, the fewer people they will ultimately impact. It seems that gobblin is in this category.
>
> A few projects, such as Flex, are already near the top of their adoption curve. The cost/benefit of renaming is not as compelling.

Jena was not early on the adoption curve. Long term compatibility has
been, and is, a major element of the project culture.  Importantly,
there are active users who answer questions (here, elsewhere), external
web tutorials, books etc referring to the pre-ASF API.  We have a
responsibility to them as well.

"add an API" is more stuff that a small set of volunteer contributors
(Jena has had no paid contributors working on) could not have coped
with.  If a project has the capacity, sure. Not all project will.

Set the expectations too high and it is implicitly a filter for a
certain kind of project in size and structure.

     Andy


>
> Julian
>
>
>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  From the peanut gallery:
>>
>> Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or does
>> the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
>>
>> Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache.  We felt
>> backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason".  It was way more
>> important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move to the
>> Apache versions of Flex.  Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there isn't
>> really a shading option.
>>
>> On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache projects
>> to have packages starting with "com.".  Flex's packages start with "mx" or
>> "spark" (the component set names).
>>
>> Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
>> 1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe org.somethingOtherThanApache)
>> should be changed as soon as possible/practical
>> 2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 8/3/17, 5:42 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>> John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to org.apache.* Is
>>>>> it a
>>>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have
>>>>>> migrated
>>>>> to
>>>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the Kafka
>>>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for Java
>>>>>> sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process of
>>>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
>>>>> gobblin.*
>>>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and backwards
>>>>>> incompatibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless you
>>>>> have a really,
>>>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN fact,
>>>> last
>>>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and doesn't
>>>> have any actual naming requirements.
>>>
>>> John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that it's
>>> an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good reason
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in the
>>> context of your software product?
>>>
>>> In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
>>> external API that most users would call:
>>>
>>>>> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
>>>>> question will be
>>>>> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if you're
>>>>> still using
>>>>> something other than o.a.
>>>
>>> That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or things
>>> that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those I
>>> could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for compatibility
>>> or other reasons.
>>>
>>> But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary Gobblin
>>> classes that users integrating the code into their application?  That
>>> should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
>>>
>>> Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
>>> suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
>>> reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.
>>>
>>> Thanks for raising the question early!
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Roman.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> - Shane
>>>
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach>
>>> e.org <http://e.org/>%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fresources&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef18c5e74b0141378
>>> 79a08d4da6d0e5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363736093056
>>> 90124&sdata=OyrEoidSvoONvFJksGYjhhz%2FatAd4b%2FyjmHcfoGeI%2B0%3D&reserved=
>>> 0
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Alex Harui-2
OK, so to summarize a more refined recommendation:

1) package names with reverse domains MUST be renamed before graduation or
have an IPMC approved plan for renaming
2) Projects who expect that their future users outnumber current users are
highly encouraged to rename packages
3) Other projects are not required to rename packages and backward
compatibility is sufficient reason to not rename packages.

Or should #2 also be a MUST?

-Alex

On 8/3/17, 8:34 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>On 03/08/17 15:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
>> It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project
>>names its java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s mainly
>>the project’s discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its
>>adoption curve is an important consideration.
>
>+1
>
>> Most projects that enter the incubator are early on the adoption curve.
>>Their future users outnumber their current users. The earlier these
>>projects make the change to org.apache, the fewer people they will
>>ultimately impact. It seems that gobblin is in this category.
>>
>> A few projects, such as Flex, are already near the top of their
>>adoption curve. The cost/benefit of renaming is not as compelling.
>
>Jena was not early on the adoption curve. Long term compatibility has
>been, and is, a major element of the project culture.  Importantly,
>there are active users who answer questions (here, elsewhere), external
>web tutorials, books etc referring to the pre-ASF API.  We have a
>responsibility to them as well.
>
>"add an API" is more stuff that a small set of volunteer contributors
>(Jena has had no paid contributors working on) could not have coped
>with.  If a project has the capacity, sure. Not all project will.
>
>Set the expectations too high and it is implicitly a filter for a
>certain kind of project in size and structure.
>
>     Andy
>
>
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>  From the peanut gallery:
>>>
>>> Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or
>>>does
>>> the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
>>>
>>> Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache.  We felt
>>> backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason".  It was way
>>>more
>>> important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move to
>>>the
>>> Apache versions of Flex.  Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there
>>>isn't
>>> really a shading option.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache
>>>projects
>>> to have packages starting with "com.".  Flex's packages start with
>>>"mx" or
>>> "spark" (the component set names).
>>>
>>> Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
>>> 1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe
>>>org.somethingOtherThanApache)
>>> should be changed as soon as possible/practical
>>> 2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes
>>>
>>> My 2 cents,
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 8/3/17, 5:42 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[hidden email]
>>><mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
>>>>><[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
>>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to
>>>>>>>org.apache.* Is
>>>>>> it a
>>>>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have
>>>>>>> migrated
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the
>>>>>>>Kafka
>>>>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for
>>>>>>>Java
>>>>>>> sources.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
>>>>>> gobblin.*
>>>>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and
>>>>>>>backwards
>>>>>>> incompatibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless
>>>>>>you
>>>>>> have a really,
>>>>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN
>>>>>fact,
>>>>> last
>>>>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and
>>>>>doesn't
>>>>> have any actual naming requirements.
>>>>
>>>> John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that
>>>>it's
>>>> an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good
>>>>reason
>>>> otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in
>>>>the
>>>> context of your software product?
>>>>
>>>> In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
>>>> external API that most users would call:
>>>>
>>>>>> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
>>>>>> question will be
>>>>>> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if
>>>>>>you're
>>>>>> still using
>>>>>> something other than o.a.
>>>>
>>>> That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or things
>>>> that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those I
>>>> could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for compatibility
>>>> or other reasons.
>>>>
>>>> But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary Gobblin
>>>> classes that users integrating the code into their application?  That
>>>> should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
>>>>
>>>> Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
>>>> suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
>>>> reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for raising the question early!
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> - Shane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ap
>>>>ach
>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.a
>>>>pach>
>>>> e.org
>>>><<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%
>>>>2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C581cf191f4d745137c4008d4da8530d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438
>>>>794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636373712971951815&sdata=aY%2BocRBKdLSJNW7r
>>>>0X4YnZ239BbsJWprJgTncaEESNQ%3D&reserved=0>%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fresou
>>>>rces&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef18c5e74b0141378
>>>>
>>>>79a08d4da6d0e5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363736093
>>>>056
>>>>
>>>>90124&sdata=OyrEoidSvoONvFJksGYjhhz%2FatAd4b%2FyjmHcfoGeI%2B0%3D&reserv
>>>>ed=
>>>> 0
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>><mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>><mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>><mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>><mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Wade Chandler-3
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 12:25, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> OK, so to summarize a more refined recommendation:
>
> 1) package names with reverse domains MUST be renamed before graduation or
> have an IPMC approved plan for renaming

NetBeans uses org.netbeans, and the domain is also being donated to Apache. It is not just an IDE, but is also a rich client platform, like Eclipse, so I don’t think just a reverse domain name should be justification for MUST. Surely part of the decision takes into consideration the life of the project along with what that reverse domain is.

> 2) Projects who expect that their future users outnumber current users are
> highly encouraged to rename packages
> 3) Other projects are not required to rename packages and backward
> compatibility is sufficient reason to not rename packages.
>
> Or should #2 also be a MUST?

Thanks,

Wade
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

John D. Ament-2
In reply to this post by Alex Harui-2
One caveat - if your packages are "com.theoldcompany.someproject" they
should be renamed to "org.apache.someproject" before graduation.  If you
have "org.someproject" already or just "someproject" as your package names,
that's not a naming issue so I don't see that ever blocking graduation.

John

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:25 PM Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:

> OK, so to summarize a more refined recommendation:
>
> 1) package names with reverse domains MUST be renamed before graduation or
> have an IPMC approved plan for renaming
> 2) Projects who expect that their future users outnumber current users are
> highly encouraged to rename packages
> 3) Other projects are not required to rename packages and backward
> compatibility is sufficient reason to not rename packages.
>
> Or should #2 also be a MUST?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 8/3/17, 8:34 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 03/08/17 15:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
> >> It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project
> >>names its java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s mainly
> >>the project’s discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its
> >>adoption curve is an important consideration.
> >
> >+1
> >
> >> Most projects that enter the incubator are early on the adoption curve.
> >>Their future users outnumber their current users. The earlier these
> >>projects make the change to org.apache, the fewer people they will
> >>ultimately impact. It seems that gobblin is in this category.
> >>
> >> A few projects, such as Flex, are already near the top of their
> >>adoption curve. The cost/benefit of renaming is not as compelling.
> >
> >Jena was not early on the adoption curve. Long term compatibility has
> >been, and is, a major element of the project culture.  Importantly,
> >there are active users who answer questions (here, elsewhere), external
> >web tutorials, books etc referring to the pre-ASF API.  We have a
> >responsibility to them as well.
> >
> >"add an API" is more stuff that a small set of volunteer contributors
> >(Jena has had no paid contributors working on) could not have coped
> >with.  If a project has the capacity, sure. Not all project will.
> >
> >Set the expectations too high and it is implicitly a filter for a
> >certain kind of project in size and structure.
> >
> >     Andy
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Julian
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  From the peanut gallery:
> >>>
> >>> Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or
> >>>does
> >>> the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
> >>>
> >>> Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache.  We felt
> >>> backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason".  It was way
> >>>more
> >>> important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move to
> >>>the
> >>> Apache versions of Flex.  Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there
> >>>isn't
> >>> really a shading option.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache
> >>>projects
> >>> to have packages starting with "com.".  Flex's packages start with
> >>>"mx" or
> >>> "spark" (the component set names).
> >>>
> >>> Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
> >>> 1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe
> >>>org.somethingOtherThanApache)
> >>> should be changed as soon as possible/practical
> >>> 2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes
> >>>
> >>> My 2 cents,
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 8/3/17, 5:42 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[hidden email]
> >>><mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> >>>>><[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
> >>>>>>> wondering
> >>>>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to
> >>>>>>>org.apache.* Is
> >>>>>> it a
> >>>>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have
> >>>>>>> migrated
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the
> >>>>>>>Kafka
> >>>>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for
> >>>>>>>Java
> >>>>>>> sources.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process
> >>>>>>>of
> >>>>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
> >>>>>> gobblin.*
> >>>>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and
> >>>>>>>backwards
> >>>>>>> incompatibility.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless
> >>>>>>you
> >>>>>> have a really,
> >>>>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN
> >>>>>fact,
> >>>>> last
> >>>>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and
> >>>>>doesn't
> >>>>> have any actual naming requirements.
> >>>>
> >>>> John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that
> >>>>it's
> >>>> an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good
> >>>>reason
> >>>> otherwise.
> >>>>
> >>>> Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in
> >>>>the
> >>>> context of your software product?
> >>>>
> >>>> In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
> >>>> external API that most users would call:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
> >>>>>> question will be
> >>>>>> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if
> >>>>>>you're
> >>>>>> still using
> >>>>>> something other than o.a.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or things
> >>>> that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those I
> >>>> could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for compatibility
> >>>> or other reasons.
> >>>>
> >>>> But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary Gobblin
> >>>> classes that users integrating the code into their application?  That
> >>>> should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
> >>>>
> >>>> Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
> >>>> suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
> >>>> reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for raising the question early!
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Roman.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> - Shane
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ap
> >>>>ach
> >>>><
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.a
> >>>>pach>
> >>>> e.org
> >>>><
> <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%
> >>>>2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C581cf191f4d745137c4008d4da8530d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438
> >>>>794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636373712971951815&sdata=aY%2BocRBKdLSJNW7r
> >>>>0X4YnZ239BbsJWprJgTncaEESNQ%3D&reserved=0>%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fresou
> >>>>rces&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef18c5e74b0141378
> >>>>
> >>>>79a08d4da6d0e5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363736093
> >>>>056
> >>>>
> >>>>90124&sdata=OyrEoidSvoONvFJksGYjhhz%2FatAd4b%2FyjmHcfoGeI%2B0%3D&reserv
> >>>>ed=
> >>>> 0
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>><mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>><mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>><mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>><mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Greg Trasuk
Does this actually need to be policy?  What’s the harm to the foundation if a project continues to use a non-Apache package name, assuming that the code was donated appropriately?  

Certainly, it should be a goal for all projects to use o.a.* package names, but if you look around the Foundation’s projects, you’re probably going to find lots of non-o.a.* packages.  So it seems like this is another case of “Incubator has one (sort-of) policy, while the rest of the Foundation does its own thing” cases.  And that being the case, it seems like an unreasonable imposition on podlings.

I’d suggest taking out the MUSTs wherever possible, and having mentors make “should”, or maybe even “oughta” recommendations.  Apache is already seen as unfriendly enough to podlings.

Cheers,

Greg.

> On Aug 3, 2017, at 12:34 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> One caveat - if your packages are "com.theoldcompany.someproject" they
> should be renamed to "org.apache.someproject" before graduation.  If you
> have "org.someproject" already or just "someproject" as your package names,
> that's not a naming issue so I don't see that ever blocking graduation.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:25 PM Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> OK, so to summarize a more refined recommendation:
>>
>> 1) package names with reverse domains MUST be renamed before graduation or
>> have an IPMC approved plan for renaming
>> 2) Projects who expect that their future users outnumber current users are
>> highly encouraged to rename packages
>> 3) Other projects are not required to rename packages and backward
>> compatibility is sufficient reason to not rename packages.
>>
>> Or should #2 also be a MUST?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 8/3/17, 8:34 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/08/17 15:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
>>>> It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project
>>>> names its java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s mainly
>>>> the project’s discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its
>>>> adoption curve is an important consideration.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> Most projects that enter the incubator are early on the adoption curve.
>>>> Their future users outnumber their current users. The earlier these
>>>> projects make the change to org.apache, the fewer people they will
>>>> ultimately impact. It seems that gobblin is in this category.
>>>>
>>>> A few projects, such as Flex, are already near the top of their
>>>> adoption curve. The cost/benefit of renaming is not as compelling.
>>>
>>> Jena was not early on the adoption curve. Long term compatibility has
>>> been, and is, a major element of the project culture.  Importantly,
>>> there are active users who answer questions (here, elsewhere), external
>>> web tutorials, books etc referring to the pre-ASF API.  We have a
>>> responsibility to them as well.
>>>
>>> "add an API" is more stuff that a small set of volunteer contributors
>>> (Jena has had no paid contributors working on) could not have coped
>>> with.  If a project has the capacity, sure. Not all project will.
>>>
>>> Set the expectations too high and it is implicitly a filter for a
>>> certain kind of project in size and structure.
>>>
>>>    Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Julian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From the peanut gallery:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or
>>>>> does
>>>>> the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
>>>>>
>>>>> Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache.  We felt
>>>>> backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason".  It was way
>>>>> more
>>>>> important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move to
>>>>> the
>>>>> Apache versions of Flex.  Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there
>>>>> isn't
>>>>> really a shading option.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache
>>>>> projects
>>>>> to have packages starting with "com.".  Flex's packages start with
>>>>> "mx" or
>>>>> "spark" (the component set names).
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
>>>>> 1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe
>>>>> org.somethingOtherThanApache)
>>>>> should be changed as soon as possible/practical
>>>>> 2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/3/17, 5:42 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
>>>>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.* Is
>>>>>>>> it a
>>>>>>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have
>>>>>>>>> migrated
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the
>>>>>>>>> Kafka
>>>>>>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for
>>>>>>>>> Java
>>>>>>>>> sources.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
>>>>>>>> gobblin.*
>>>>>>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and
>>>>>>>>> backwards
>>>>>>>>> incompatibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> have a really,
>>>>>>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN
>>>>>>> fact,
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> have any actual naming requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good
>>>>>> reason
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> context of your software product?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
>>>>>> external API that most users would call:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
>>>>>>>> question will be
>>>>>>>> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if
>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>> still using
>>>>>>>> something other than o.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or things
>>>>>> that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those I
>>>>>> could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for compatibility
>>>>>> or other reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary Gobblin
>>>>>> classes that users integrating the code into their application?  That
>>>>>> should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
>>>>>> suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
>>>>>> reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for raising the question early!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Shane
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ap
>>>>>> ach
>>>>>> <
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.a
>>>>>> pach>
>>>>>> e.org
>>>>>> <
>> <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%
>>>>>> 2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C581cf191f4d745137c4008d4da8530d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438
>>>>>> 794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636373712971951815&sdata=aY%2BocRBKdLSJNW7r
>>>>>> 0X4YnZ239BbsJWprJgTncaEESNQ%3D&reserved=0>%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fresou
>>>>>> rces&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef18c5e74b0141378
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 79a08d4da6d0e5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363736093
>>>>>> 056
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 90124&sdata=OyrEoidSvoONvFJksGYjhhz%2FatAd4b%2FyjmHcfoGeI%2B0%3D&reserv
>>>>>> ed=
>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

Abhishek Tiwari-2
Thanks all for your replies. We decided to bite the bullet and do it since
we are half way already through our work. We will try to address backward
incompatibilities via package shims, and special handling of configs.

On a side note, I think for matters such as these Incubator should document
the official wording once and for all, so that future incubating projects
can plan ahead and have clarity.

Thanks again,
Abhishek

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Greg Trasuk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Does this actually need to be policy?  What’s the harm to the foundation
> if a project continues to use a non-Apache package name, assuming that the
> code was donated appropriately?
>
> Certainly, it should be a goal for all projects to use o.a.* package
> names, but if you look around the Foundation’s projects, you’re probably
> going to find lots of non-o.a.* packages.  So it seems like this is another
> case of “Incubator has one (sort-of) policy, while the rest of the
> Foundation does its own thing” cases.  And that being the case, it seems
> like an unreasonable imposition on podlings.
>
> I’d suggest taking out the MUSTs wherever possible, and having mentors
> make “should”, or maybe even “oughta” recommendations.  Apache is already
> seen as unfriendly enough to podlings.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg.
> > On Aug 3, 2017, at 12:34 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > One caveat - if your packages are "com.theoldcompany.someproject" they
> > should be renamed to "org.apache.someproject" before graduation.  If you
> > have "org.someproject" already or just "someproject" as your package
> names,
> > that's not a naming issue so I don't see that ever blocking graduation.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:25 PM Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> OK, so to summarize a more refined recommendation:
> >>
> >> 1) package names with reverse domains MUST be renamed before graduation
> or
> >> have an IPMC approved plan for renaming
> >> 2) Projects who expect that their future users outnumber current users
> are
> >> highly encouraged to rename packages
> >> 3) Other projects are not required to rename packages and backward
> >> compatibility is sufficient reason to not rename packages.
> >>
> >> Or should #2 also be a MUST?
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 8/3/17, 8:34 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 03/08/17 15:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
> >>>> It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project
> >>>> names its java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s
> mainly
> >>>> the project’s discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its
> >>>> adoption curve is an important consideration.
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>>> Most projects that enter the incubator are early on the adoption
> curve.
> >>>> Their future users outnumber their current users. The earlier these
> >>>> projects make the change to org.apache, the fewer people they will
> >>>> ultimately impact. It seems that gobblin is in this category.
> >>>>
> >>>> A few projects, such as Flex, are already near the top of their
> >>>> adoption curve. The cost/benefit of renaming is not as compelling.
> >>>
> >>> Jena was not early on the adoption curve. Long term compatibility has
> >>> been, and is, a major element of the project culture.  Importantly,
> >>> there are active users who answer questions (here, elsewhere), external
> >>> web tutorials, books etc referring to the pre-ASF API.  We have a
> >>> responsibility to them as well.
> >>>
> >>> "add an API" is more stuff that a small set of volunteer contributors
> >>> (Jena has had no paid contributors working on) could not have coped
> >>> with.  If a project has the capacity, sure. Not all project will.
> >>>
> >>> Set the expectations too high and it is implicitly a filter for a
> >>> certain kind of project in size and structure.
> >>>
> >>>    Andy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Julian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From the peanut gallery:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or
> >>>>> does
> >>>>> the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache.  We felt
> >>>>> backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason".  It was way
> >>>>> more
> >>>>> important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move
> to
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> Apache versions of Flex.  Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there
> >>>>> isn't
> >>>>> really a shading option.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache
> >>>>> projects
> >>>>> to have packages starting with "com.".  Flex's packages start with
> >>>>> "mx" or
> >>>>> "spark" (the component set names).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
> >>>>> 1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe
> >>>>> org.somethingOtherThanApache)
> >>>>> should be changed as soon as possible/practical
> >>>>> 2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My 2 cents,
> >>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8/3/17, 5:42 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[hidden email]
> >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> >>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
> >>>>>>>>> wondering
> >>>>>>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to
> >>>>>>>>> org.apache.* Is
> >>>>>>>> it a
> >>>>>>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have
> >>>>>>>>> migrated
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the
> >>>>>>>>> Kafka
> >>>>>>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for
> >>>>>>>>> Java
> >>>>>>>>> sources.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
> >>>>>>>> gobblin.*
> >>>>>>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and
> >>>>>>>>> backwards
> >>>>>>>>> incompatibility.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless
> >>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>> have a really,
> >>>>>>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN
> >>>>>>> fact,
> >>>>>>> last
> >>>>>>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and
> >>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>> have any actual naming requirements.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that
> >>>>>> it's
> >>>>>> an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good
> >>>>>> reason
> >>>>>> otherwise.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> context of your software product?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
> >>>>>> external API that most users would call:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
> >>>>>>>> question will be
> >>>>>>>> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if
> >>>>>>>> you're
> >>>>>>>> still using
> >>>>>>>> something other than o.a.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or
> things
> >>>>>> that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those
> I
> >>>>>> could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for
> compatibility
> >>>>>> or other reasons.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary
> Gobblin
> >>>>>> classes that users integrating the code into their application?
> That
> >>>>>> should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
> >>>>>> suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
> >>>>>> reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for raising the question early!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Roman.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Shane
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ap
> >>>>>> ach
> >>>>>> <
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.a
> >>>>>> pach>
> >>>>>> e.org
> >>>>>> <
> >> <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%
> >>>>>> 2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C581cf191f4d745137c4008d4da85
> 30d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438
> >>>>>> 794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636373712971951815&sdata=aY%
> 2BocRBKdLSJNW7r
> >>>>>> 0X4YnZ239BbsJWprJgTncaEESNQ%3D&reserved=0>%2Ffoundation%
> 2Fmarks%2Fresou
> >>>>>> rces&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef18c5e74b0141378
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 79a08d4da6d0e5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363736093
> >>>>>> 056
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 90124&sdata=OyrEoidSvoONvFJksGYjhhz%2FatAd4b%2FyjmHcfoGeI%2B0%3D&
> reserv
> >>>>>> ed=
> >>>>>> 0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

John D. Ament-2
In reply to this post by Greg Trasuk
Which must's do you see greg?

On Aug 3, 2017 1:09 PM, "Greg Trasuk" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Does this actually need to be policy?  What’s the harm to the foundation
> if a project continues to use a non-Apache package name, assuming that the
> code was donated appropriately?
>
> Certainly, it should be a goal for all projects to use o.a.* package
> names, but if you look around the Foundation’s projects, you’re probably
> going to find lots of non-o.a.* packages.  So it seems like this is another
> case of “Incubator has one (sort-of) policy, while the rest of the
> Foundation does its own thing” cases.  And that being the case, it seems
> like an unreasonable imposition on podlings.
>
> I’d suggest taking out the MUSTs wherever possible, and having mentors
> make “should”, or maybe even “oughta” recommendations.  Apache is already
> seen as unfriendly enough to podlings.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg.
> > On Aug 3, 2017, at 12:34 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > One caveat - if your packages are "com.theoldcompany.someproject" they
> > should be renamed to "org.apache.someproject" before graduation.  If you
> > have "org.someproject" already or just "someproject" as your package
> names,
> > that's not a naming issue so I don't see that ever blocking graduation.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:25 PM Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> OK, so to summarize a more refined recommendation:
> >>
> >> 1) package names with reverse domains MUST be renamed before graduation
> or
> >> have an IPMC approved plan for renaming
> >> 2) Projects who expect that their future users outnumber current users
> are
> >> highly encouraged to rename packages
> >> 3) Other projects are not required to rename packages and backward
> >> compatibility is sufficient reason to not rename packages.
> >>
> >> Or should #2 also be a MUST?
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 8/3/17, 8:34 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 03/08/17 15:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
> >>>> It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project
> >>>> names its java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s
> mainly
> >>>> the project’s discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its
> >>>> adoption curve is an important consideration.
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>>> Most projects that enter the incubator are early on the adoption
> curve.
> >>>> Their future users outnumber their current users. The earlier these
> >>>> projects make the change to org.apache, the fewer people they will
> >>>> ultimately impact. It seems that gobblin is in this category.
> >>>>
> >>>> A few projects, such as Flex, are already near the top of their
> >>>> adoption curve. The cost/benefit of renaming is not as compelling.
> >>>
> >>> Jena was not early on the adoption curve. Long term compatibility has
> >>> been, and is, a major element of the project culture.  Importantly,
> >>> there are active users who answer questions (here, elsewhere), external
> >>> web tutorials, books etc referring to the pre-ASF API.  We have a
> >>> responsibility to them as well.
> >>>
> >>> "add an API" is more stuff that a small set of volunteer contributors
> >>> (Jena has had no paid contributors working on) could not have coped
> >>> with.  If a project has the capacity, sure. Not all project will.
> >>>
> >>> Set the expectations too high and it is implicitly a filter for a
> >>> certain kind of project in size and structure.
> >>>
> >>>    Andy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Julian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From the peanut gallery:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or
> >>>>> does
> >>>>> the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache.  We felt
> >>>>> backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason".  It was way
> >>>>> more
> >>>>> important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move
> to
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> Apache versions of Flex.  Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there
> >>>>> isn't
> >>>>> really a shading option.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache
> >>>>> projects
> >>>>> to have packages starting with "com.".  Flex's packages start with
> >>>>> "mx" or
> >>>>> "spark" (the component set names).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
> >>>>> 1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe
> >>>>> org.somethingOtherThanApache)
> >>>>> should be changed as soon as possible/practical
> >>>>> 2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My 2 cents,
> >>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8/3/17, 5:42 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[hidden email]
> >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> >>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
> >>>>>>>>> wondering
> >>>>>>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to
> >>>>>>>>> org.apache.* Is
> >>>>>>>> it a
> >>>>>>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have
> >>>>>>>>> migrated
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the
> >>>>>>>>> Kafka
> >>>>>>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for
> >>>>>>>>> Java
> >>>>>>>>> sources.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
> >>>>>>>> gobblin.*
> >>>>>>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and
> >>>>>>>>> backwards
> >>>>>>>>> incompatibility.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless
> >>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>> have a really,
> >>>>>>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN
> >>>>>>> fact,
> >>>>>>> last
> >>>>>>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and
> >>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>> have any actual naming requirements.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that
> >>>>>> it's
> >>>>>> an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good
> >>>>>> reason
> >>>>>> otherwise.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> context of your software product?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
> >>>>>> external API that most users would call:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
> >>>>>>>> question will be
> >>>>>>>> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if
> >>>>>>>> you're
> >>>>>>>> still using
> >>>>>>>> something other than o.a.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or
> things
> >>>>>> that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those
> I
> >>>>>> could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for
> compatibility
> >>>>>> or other reasons.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary
> Gobblin
> >>>>>> classes that users integrating the code into their application?
> That
> >>>>>> should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
> >>>>>> suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
> >>>>>> reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for raising the question early!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Roman.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Shane
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ap
> >>>>>> ach
> >>>>>> <
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.a
> >>>>>> pach>
> >>>>>> e.org
> >>>>>> <
> >> <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%
> >>>>>> 2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C581cf191f4d745137c4008d4da85
> 30d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438
> >>>>>> 794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636373712971951815&sdata=aY%
> 2BocRBKdLSJNW7r
> >>>>>> 0X4YnZ239BbsJWprJgTncaEESNQ%3D&reserved=0>%2Ffoundation%
> 2Fmarks%2Fresou
> >>>>>> rces&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef18c5e74b0141378
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 79a08d4da6d0e5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363736093
> >>>>>> 056
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 90124&sdata=OyrEoidSvoONvFJksGYjhhz%2FatAd4b%2FyjmHcfoGeI%2B0%3D&
> reserv
> >>>>>> ed=
> >>>>>> 0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

P. Taylor Goetz
In reply to this post by John D. Ament-2
When Storm was incubating, our package names started with backtype.* and storm.* and it stayed that way through graduation and there was never any mention of a need to change. In fact, Storm only moved to org.apache.* with the 1.0 release in April 2016, about 1.5 years after graduation.

There are implications for Heron since it maintains backtype.* and storm.* packages presumably for backward compatibility with older versions of Storm. I’m not sure what that means.

I think it would be prudent to better clarify and document the policy around this.

-Taylor

> On Aug 3, 2017, at 12:34 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> One caveat - if your packages are "com.theoldcompany.someproject" they
> should be renamed to "org.apache.someproject" before graduation.  If you
> have "org.someproject" already or just "someproject" as your package names,
> that's not a naming issue so I don't see that ever blocking graduation.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:25 PM Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> OK, so to summarize a more refined recommendation:
>>
>> 1) package names with reverse domains MUST be renamed before graduation or
>> have an IPMC approved plan for renaming
>> 2) Projects who expect that their future users outnumber current users are
>> highly encouraged to rename packages
>> 3) Other projects are not required to rename packages and backward
>> compatibility is sufficient reason to not rename packages.
>>
>> Or should #2 also be a MUST?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 8/3/17, 8:34 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/08/17 15:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
>>>> It rarely comes down to the IPMC or the Board dictating how a project
>>>> names its java classes (does anyone recall an instance?), so it’s mainly
>>>> the project’s discretion. In my opinion, where the project is on its
>>>> adoption curve is an important consideration.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> Most projects that enter the incubator are early on the adoption curve.
>>>> Their future users outnumber their current users. The earlier these
>>>> projects make the change to org.apache, the fewer people they will
>>>> ultimately impact. It seems that gobblin is in this category.
>>>>
>>>> A few projects, such as Flex, are already near the top of their
>>>> adoption curve. The cost/benefit of renaming is not as compelling.
>>>
>>> Jena was not early on the adoption curve. Long term compatibility has
>>> been, and is, a major element of the project culture.  Importantly,
>>> there are active users who answer questions (here, elsewhere), external
>>> web tutorials, books etc referring to the pre-ASF API.  We have a
>>> responsibility to them as well.
>>>
>>> "add an API" is more stuff that a small set of volunteer contributors
>>> (Jena has had no paid contributors working on) could not have coped
>>> with.  If a project has the capacity, sure. Not all project will.
>>>
>>> Set the expectations too high and it is implicitly a filter for a
>>> certain kind of project in size and structure.
>>>
>>>    Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Julian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From the peanut gallery:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or
>>>>> does
>>>>> the IPMC and after graduation, the board?
>>>>>
>>>>> Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache.  We felt
>>>>> backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason".  It was way
>>>>> more
>>>>> important to not require folks to alter their code in order to move to
>>>>> the
>>>>> Apache versions of Flex.  Also, we are not using Java/Maven so there
>>>>> isn't
>>>>> really a shading option.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, it seems like it could be confusing for Apache
>>>>> projects
>>>>> to have packages starting with "com.".  Flex's packages start with
>>>>> "mx" or
>>>>> "spark" (the component set names).
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems like a more refined guidance would be that:
>>>>> 1) packages starting with "com" (and maybe
>>>>> org.somethingOtherThanApache)
>>>>> should be changed as soon as possible/practical
>>>>> 2) there is no recommendation for other package prefixes
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/3/17, 5:42 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John D. Ament wrote on 8/2/17 9:13 PM:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Abhishek Tiwari <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In regards to the recently incubated project - Gobblin, we were
>>>>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>>>>> about the policy around renaming Java package names to
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.* Is
>>>>>>>> it a
>>>>>>>>> mandatory requirement or good to have?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reason to ask this is that while we see many projects have
>>>>>>>>> migrated
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> use org.apache.* package name for their Java source files, the
>>>>>>>>> Kafka
>>>>>>>>> project uses kafka.* for Scala sources and org.apache.kafka.* for
>>>>>>>>> Java
>>>>>>>>> sources.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please let us know as soon as possible, because we are in process
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> renaming the  packages but if not mandatory we would want to keep
>>>>>>>> gobblin.*
>>>>>>>>> package name and avoid the cost of downstream migrations and
>>>>>>>>> backwards
>>>>>>>>> incompatibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't have to do it right away, but it is a requirement unless
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> have a really,
>>>>>>>> really, really good reason of why you can't do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not aware of any requirement around Java package naming.  IN
>>>>>>> fact,
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> time it came up it was clear that its a best practice only, and
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> have any actual naming requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John: Do you have a link to that discussion?  I'm of the mind that
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> an expected best practice, unless you have a really, really good
>>>>>> reason
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abhishek: Can you describe in more detail what these packages do in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> context of your software product?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general, yes, I'd echo Roman's point strongly for the primary
>>>>>> external API that most users would call:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or to put it a different way: during your eventual graduation this
>>>>>>>> question will be
>>>>>>>> asked and you better have a really, really good explanation if
>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>> still using
>>>>>>>> something other than o.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is, supporting packages, or things that are standards, or things
>>>>>> that are specific plugins that integrate with external code - those I
>>>>>> could understand staying with a non-a.o package name for compatibility
>>>>>> or other reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the main program that users run in the JVM, or the primary Gobblin
>>>>>> classes that users integrating the code into their application?  That
>>>>>> should be in an org.apache.gobblin.* package.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple "backwards compatibility for users" as an argument is only
>>>>>> suitable if you're deprecating and have a plan to switch in the
>>>>>> reasonably-near future after graduation.  Not for the long term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for raising the question early!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Shane
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ap
>>>>>> ach
>>>>>> <
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.a
>>>>>> pach>
>>>>>> e.org
>>>>>> <
>> <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fe.org%
>>>>>> 2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C581cf191f4d745137c4008d4da8530d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438
>>>>>> 794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636373712971951815&sdata=aY%2BocRBKdLSJNW7r
>>>>>> 0X4YnZ239BbsJWprJgTncaEESNQ%3D&reserved=0>%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fresou
>>>>>> rces&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef18c5e74b0141378
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 79a08d4da6d0e5c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363736093
>>>>>> 056
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 90124&sdata=OyrEoidSvoONvFJksGYjhhz%2FatAd4b%2FyjmHcfoGeI%2B0%3D&reserv
>>>>>> ed=
>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12
Loading...