# New Client Artifacts: Naming and Packaging problematic?

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/new-client-artifacts-naming-and-packaging-problematic/59228>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Created:** [August 29, 2016, 7:10pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/new-client-artifacts-naming-and-packaging-problematic/59228 "2016-08-29T19:10:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ctrimble](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/ctrimble/32/11663_2.png) [@ctrimble](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/ctrimble)\
**Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 7:10pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/new-client-artifacts-naming-and-packaging-problematic/59228/1 "2016-08-29T19:10:50Z")

</div>

I tried out the new low level rest client this weekend and a couple of items jumped out at me, relating to the way the artifacts are structured. Didn't know if these should be feature requests, so I thought I would come here first.

First off, the artifact naming is very generic. The maven group ID [org.elasticsearch.client](http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cga%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.elasticsearch.client%22) contains some very generic artifact IDs. These will translate into very generic jar names and could cause issues when packaging them with other code. For instance, the artifact id `rest` will become `rest.jar` during builds. The artifact IDs should probably contain `elasticsearch` in their name.

~~The second item I saw relates to packaging. Currently, the package `org.elasticsearch.client` has classes defined in multiple jars. Although this is not against a spec, the situation can be problematic. Perhaps they should be in sub packages, like `org.elsticsearch.client.rest`.~~

Thoughts?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dadoonet](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/dadoonet/32/137187_2.png) [@dadoonet](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/dadoonet)\
**Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 7:50pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/new-client-artifacts-naming-and-packaging-problematic/59228/2 "2016-08-29T19:50:53Z")

</div>

@javanna WDYT?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ctrimble](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/ctrimble/32/11663_2.png) [@ctrimble](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/ctrimble)\
**Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/new-client-artifacts-naming-and-packaging-problematic/59228/3 "2016-08-29T21:05:36Z")

</div>

@dadoonet @javanna I just took a second look at my code and did a quick scan of the artifacts containing the package org.elsticsearch.client. It looks like everything, but the rest client, is in a sub package, so there really is no issue with packaging. Sorry for the noise on that.

The artifact IDs still look problematic to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![javanna](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/javanna/32/4698_2.png) [@javanna](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/javanna)\
**Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 8:05am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/new-client-artifacts-naming-and-packaging-problematic/59228/4 "2016-08-30T08:05:07Z")

</div>

I agree on the issue with jar naming, that's odd, could you please open an issue?

Cheers  
Luca

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 10:24pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/new-client-artifacts-naming-and-packaging-problematic/59228/5 "2017-07-05T22:24:11Z")

</div>