Correct automatic module name of pioneer

[Bukama]

As of now the following entry inside the MANIFEST is created:

"Automatic-Module-Name" to "org.junitpioneer"

But URL is https://junit-pioneer.org/

Maybe @nicolaiparlog wants to add further information as in Discord he only asked to open an bishue about the topic :)

nipafx: @matthias / Bukama / bish Can you open a bishue about the automatic module name?

[nipafx]

Thanks for creating the issue. Just like packages, module names can't contain dashes, so org.junit-pioneer is out of the question. But I wonder whether it should be org.junitpioneer.xp (xp = extension pack).

Because otherwise, if Pioneer launches other projects, their module name (e.g. org.junitpioneer.foo) would make it appear as if there's a super/sub relationship between these modules (just like people think of org.junitpioneer.foo as a subpackage of org.junitpioneer.

On the other hand, with xp, the module name would no longer be a prefix of the package name (not at all required, but a good practice and nice touch) and the internal moniker xp would leak into the public.

Opinions?

[nipafx]

Module and package names are drafted with the same process: Take a domain (example.org) and reverse it (-> org.example for modules, org.example for packages). Package names are then often extended to appear as a deeper hierarchy (-> org.example.foo), which makes the module name a prefix of the package name.

That is not required at all by the module system, but it's aesthetically pleasing and if the module name were markedly different from the "top-level package" (no such thing in real life) than that's odd. Why is one so different from the other? In this case, if the module is called org.junitpioneer.xp, shouldn't then all packages have org.junitpioneer.xp as a prefix?

[Bukama]

Let's assume pioneer would have been a modularized project, next to others like the site. Then we would need an identifier for the project anyway.

Let's take a view from the GitHub page: organisation is "(org.)junit-pioneer" project is "junit-pioneer". So there's some type of duplication, but well you could say because we don't have a name for the extension pack project: Our package-names represent this too:
org.junitpioneer.<missing projectname.>jupiter (replace jupiter with vintage for Junit 4 stuff).

So we are missing that part in my opinion and I'm fine with just calling it xp. But then we should rename the packages inside the project too.

[nipafx]

Pointing to GitHub is a good idea. If we'd go with xp as the project name, it should then also be junit-pioneer/xp on GH, right? Eh... Three options:

1. Ignore the hierarchical module name "problem" and keep everything as is.
2. Acknowledge that the project is called XP and rename all the things to (org.)junit(-)pioneer(.|/)xp
3. Try some mix of junit-pioneer/xp on GitHub and in module/package name(s)

All of this seems more hassle than it's worth and I'm arguing for 1. If anybody strongly disagrees and makes a good point, I will reopen.