Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Decide on final names for JPMS module and Maven artifact #181

Closed
cpovirk opened this issue Mar 12, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

Decide on final names for JPMS module and Maven artifact #181

cpovirk opened this issue Mar 12, 2021 · 4 comments
Labels
dev development tasks, build issues...
Milestone

Comments

@cpovirk
Copy link
Collaborator

cpovirk commented Mar 12, 2021

We discussed these questions a bit in the threads linked from #160 (comment), but I don't think we tried to draw the wider group's attention to them. We don't need to do that even now (though people are welcome to chime in anytime!), but I wanted to file this so that we don't forget to come back to it months in the future.

In my commit to rename the package from org.jspecify.annotations to org.jspecify.nullness, I'm taking the liberty of renaming the JPMS module and the Maven artifact, too:

cpovirk added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 12, 2021
…nnotations there.

Closes #160

Also relevant to #1

Plus, renames relevant to
#181:

- Rename the JPMS module from org.jspecify.annotations to org.jspecify.
- Rename the Maven artifact from org.jspecify:annotations to
  org.jspecify:jspecify.
@netdpb netdpb added this to the 1.0 milestone Sep 14, 2021
@kevinb9n
Copy link
Collaborator

kevinb9n commented Jan 27, 2022

Without laying specific odds on it, I think we should assume that org.jspecify might sooner or later host additional artifacts besides the annotations; #220 has some possible examples.

I can't really imagine needing to split up annotation artifacts though.

Put together, it surprises me just a bit that we wouldn't call this org.jspecify:annotations. That's... exactly what it is and what I expect it to always be, and... well, why not?

I don't think it's a disaster if the annotations artifact grabs the top billing; it just seems subjectively odd/unnecessary to me, that's all.

@cpovirk
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cpovirk commented Jan 28, 2022

The package rename from org.jspecify.annotations to org.jspecify.nullness was arguably not worth the trouble.... But once we did that, it seemed to make sense to rename the module and Maven artifact, too. And now that the Maven artifact is out there, it would be nice not to rename it (https://jlbp.dev/JLBP-6) -- though we could probably get away with it for a pre-1.0 library if we really wanted.

I don't think there was ever much discussion of the artifact name. One nice feature of plain "jspecify" is that there's no question of whether it's "annotation" (singular) or "annotations" (plural), as debated back in #1.

(Oddly, we have an inverted situation inside Google, where we call the Bazel target "jspecify_annotations" and there's been some discussion of changing it to plain "jspecify" :))

@kevinb9n
Copy link
Collaborator

kevinb9n commented Sep 9, 2022

I'm more comfortable now with the idea of the annotations artifact getting the primary name of "jspecify" itself, for both the module and the maven artifact. I think we can close this.

@kevinb9n
Copy link
Collaborator

(also ran this by the group in our meeting. we're good)

@kevinb9n kevinb9n added dev development tasks, build issues... and removed non-code labels Nov 30, 2022
@kevinb9n kevinb9n modified the milestones: 1.0, 0.3 Dec 2, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dev development tasks, build issues...
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants