Hi,
jaxb-xjc-maven-plugin is also a good suggestion. But I guess I'd have to
talk to Oracle lawyers then. :)
Best wishes,
Alexey
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Martin Grebac <martin.grebac_at_oracle.com>
wrote:
> Hi Lexi,
> ah, naming, one of the hardest parts of software development ;) (my
> favorite version of the claim: https://twitter.com/kellan/
> status/11110460227 )
>
> Maybe one thing to consider, too, is that jaxb2-maven-plugin name may not
> be well received from codehaus plugin developers - so you may potentially
> not solve the problem in the end.
>
> xjc-maven-plugin sounds best to me, maybe even jaxb-xjc-maven-plugin
>
> MartiNG
>
> I claim that I'm not a lawyer, not in a position to offer any kind of
> legal advice, I'm an Oracle employee, however my opinion here is solely my
> own personal one.
>
>
> On 17.10.14 0:14, Timothy Astle wrote:
>
>> I would recommend that you go with jaxb2-maven-plugin.
>>
>> You need to specify the groupId regardless when specifying the plugin.
>> This is why I find the whole Apache Maven plugin artifactId enforcement
>> ridiculous. It's pretty much common sense when you see something coming
>> from org.apache that it's from Apache.
>>
>> A *new user* would most likely:
>>
>> 1. Find your plugin information on your website.
>> 2. Find your plugin information from central.
>> 3. Find your plugin from some blog (or something)
>>
>> So in those cases, they're new users and will copy and paste the
>> dependency snippet.
>>
>> For *existing users*, they just want to update. So if you make a note on
>> your website of the change, we'll figure it out. We won't set about
>> switching plugins. It'd take some effort to get screwed up, I'd imagine.
>>
>> GAV is a strong concept in Maven. And if you're a Java developer, you
>> should understand the importance of naming a package, where it plays an
>> important part of identifying the organization from which the code came
>> from (recommend reversing your company / organizations domain
>> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/package/namingpkgs.html).
>>
>> I understand that XJC is more inline with what the plugin already does,
>> but if you have plans on allowing more JAXB2 functionality, or if you don't
>> want to completely throw off your users, I'd stick with
>> jaxb2-maven-plugin. I think a lot more people know about the Maven guys
>> forcing plugins to drop "maven-", and can rationalize, and find threads
>> like this, to explain the change. Changing the artifactId to something
>> entirely new is worse than sharing the artifactId with another
>> organization. Just count how many libraries and plugins there are on
>> central that only differ by groupId.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Ioannis Mavroukakis <
>> imavroukakis_at_gmail.com <mailto:imavroukakis_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> xjc-maven-plugin would get my vote. I don't think that Oracle
>> would be so obtuse^H^H^H^H^H difficult as to oppose this, but I
>> would get this in writing.
>>
>> On 16 October 2014 20:55, Aleksei Valikov <valikov_at_gmx.net
>> <mailto:valikov_at_gmx.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> mvn-jaxb2-plugin is an idea. Does not follow the proposed
>> convention strictly, though
>> (http://maven.apache.org/guides/plugin/guide-java-
>> plugin-development.html).
>>
>> Another option would be xjc-maven-plugin. I hope I won't get a
>> C&D from Oracle for using the XJC name here. :)
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Alexey
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Wolfgang Laun
>> <wolfgang.laun_at_gmail.com <mailto:wolfgang.laun_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Aleksei:
>>
>> So if the Injuns stick to their exclusive-rights policy:
>> what about renaming your plugin
>>
>> mvn-jaxb2-plugin
>>
>> -W
>>
>> On 16 October 2014 19:24, KARR, DAVID <dk068x_at_att.com
>> <mailto:dk068x_at_att.com>> wrote:
>>
>> That’s just weird. Anyone can see that it’s logical
>> to name plugins in ANY plugin architecture like
>> “<AppWithPluginArchitecture>-<PluginName>-plugin”.
>> Forcing people to reverse that is confusing. Consider
>> “eclipse-maven-plugin” and “maven-eclipse-plugin”.
>> It’s obvious to anyone aware of that convention that
>> the first is a plugin for Eclipse that supports maven
>> (even if the main plugin that does this is named
>> differently), and the second is a plugin for Maven
>> that supports Eclipse. They want you to name your
>> plugin “jaxb2-maven-plugin”, so I guess that’s a
>> plugin for jaxb2 that supports Maven, right? :)
>>
>> Whether a plugin is “officially supported” should be
>> determined more by its group id than the artifact id.
>> When artifact ids conflict, that’s your only choice.
>>
>> *From:*aleksei.valikov_at_gmail.com
>> <mailto:aleksei.valikov_at_gmail.com>
>> [mailto:aleksei.valikov_at_gmail.com
>> <mailto:aleksei.valikov_at_gmail.com>] *On Behalf Of
>> *Aleksei Valikov
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 16, 2014 4:13 AM
>> *To:* users_at_jaxb.java.net <mailto:users_at_jaxb.java.net>
>> *Subject:* maven-jaxb2-plugin to renamed due to a
>> trademark/naming convention issue with Apache
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As many of you probably know, I develop and maintain
>> the maven-jaxb2-plugin. I am facing a trademark/naming
>> convention issue with Apache and I'd appreciate an
>> advice on that.
>>
>> I have started my project almost 8 years ago and took
>> the name maven-jaxb2-plugin as it seemed to be _the_
>> right convention back then.
>>
>> Few years later Apache estabinished the
>> some-maven-plugin convention for non-Apache plugins.
>> This is how they define it here:
>> http://maven.apache.org/guides/plugin/guide-java-
>> plugin-development.html
>>
>> /You will typically name your plugin
>> //<yourplugin>-maven-plugin//./
>>
>> /Calling it //maven-<yourplugin>-plugin// (note
>> "Maven" is at the beginning of the plugin name) is
>> *strongly discouraged* since it's a *reserved naming
>> pattern for official Apache Maven plugins maintained
>> by the Apache Maven team* with groupId
>> //org.apache.maven.plugins//. Using this naming
>> pattern is an infringement of the Apache Maven Trademark./
>>
>>
>> This became a warning during the build around three
>> years ago. My plugin was ~5 years old back then, with
>> an already established user base etc. I did not want
>> to rename. This was a mistake, but it is a mistake
>> already made.
>>
>> I also think I haven't seen this warning for the long
>> time as there was no need to update the versions of
>> Maven libraries I used
>>
>> Now an Apache committer, also a user of my plugin
>> tried to clarified the legal terms of this naming.
>> Unfortunately, Apache seems to have a very strict
>> position on the issue. Please check this message:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/
>> msg102491.html
>>
>> And the further discussion.
>>
>> So in the current situation, using the
>> maven-jaxb2-plugin further on, I am
>>
>> * facing a threat of cease-and-desist letter and
>>
>> * a probability that my plugin will stop
>> working/compiling any time soon.
>>
>> I would not speculate on whether this trademark
>> infringement thing is legally sound or not. It does
>> not matter. They're an organisation, I'm a private
>> person. I can't fight them. An even if the legal
>> threat is unsound, they can easily shut down my plugin
>> technically in any next version of Maven.
>>
>> So the thing is that I have no other choice as to
>> rename my plugin.
>>
>> I have not yet desided on the name. The first choice
>> would be jaxb2-maven-plugin, but there is already
>> another Maven plugin under that name, from Codehaus.
>> Yes, sure, groupId is different but people will mix
>> them up, definitely.
>>
>> Any other name will disconnect my plugin from its
>> longstanding history even more. This will hurt my user
>> base. I don't want this.
>>
>> Merging the projects is probably not an option.
>>
>> So my options are:
>>
>> * rename to jaxb2-maven-plugin or
>>
>> * rename to something else
>>
>> I do not know what to do and would really appreciate
>> opinions and advice.
>>
>> (I'm not talking legal advice of any kind, more common
>> sense community advice.)
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Alexey
>>
>>