Rebrand to Open Workflow Specification

What would you like to be added:

The Serverless Workflow Specification has been renamed to the Open Workflow Specification(open-workflow-specification/specification).

This SDK needs to follow suit. The GitHub org has already moved (README links already point to
open-workflow-specification), but the Maven coordinates, Java packages, and remaining branding are still
on the old name. Given the scope, this should land as a breaking change in 8.0.0.

Known places still referencing the old name/branding:

Maven groupId: io.serverlessworkflow → cloud.openworkflow
Maven artifactIds (all under pom.xml / module pom.xml files)
Java base package: io.serverlessworkflow.* across api, impl, types, annotations, serialization, mermaid modules
Root pom.xml metadata:
- <name>Serverless Workflow :: Parent</name> (and per-module <name> tags)
- <url>https://serverlessworkflow.io/sdk-java/</url>
- <organization><name>Serverless Workflow Specification Authors</name>
- <scm> block still points at git@github.com:serverlessworkflow/sdk-java.git / https://github.com/serverlessworkflow/sdk-java
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/*.md: "Serverless Workflow Java SDK" wording in bug-report.md, enhancement.md, question.md
README.md and module README.md files (impl/, impl/persistence/, impl/persistence/mvstore/, fluent/, mermaid/): remaining io.serverlessworkflow / serverlessworkflow-* snippets in dependency examples and badges (Gitpod/FOSSA badges already updated to open-workflow-specification, but Maven coordinate examples were not)

Open questions to resolve before implementation:

What is the new groupId / Maven Central coordinates?
Do we keep io.serverlessworkflow as a deprecated/shaded compatibility package, or is this a clean break?
New Java base package name to replace io.serverlessworkflow.*?

Proposed approach for old-coordinate compatibility (re: question 2):

Instead of a shaded/deprecated compatibility package, use Maven's built-in POM relocation mechanism.
Publish 8.0.0 under the new coordinates, and alongside it publish a stub POM for each of the nine
old serverlessworkflow-* artifacts containing only a <distributionManagement><relocation> pointing at
the corresponding new groupId:artifactId:version. Maven consumers (direct and transitive) resolving the
old coordinates get automatically redirected to the new artifact with a warning, no source changes
required. Example for serverlessworkflow-api:

<project>
  <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
  <groupId>io.serverlessworkflow</groupId>
  <artifactId>serverlessworkflow-api</artifactId>
  <version>8.0.0</version>
  <packaging>pom</packaging>

  <distributionManagement>
    <relocation>
      <groupId>cloud.openworkflow</groupId>
      <artifactId>openworkflow-api</artifactId>
      <version>8.0.0</version>
      <message>io.serverlessworkflow:serverlessworkflow-api has moved to org.openworkflow:openworkflow-api.</message>
    </relocation>
  </distributionManagement>
</project>

Caveats:

Requires one stub POM per module (all nine artifacts).
Publishing to Maven Central requires being a verified owner of both the old and new groupId namespaces.
Gradle's maven-publish plugin can generate relocation POMs and Gradle does resolve them, but this path is less battle-tested than Maven's own resolver — verify with a real Gradle consumer before relying on it.
Relocation only redirects dependency resolution; it does not rewrite io.serverlessworkflow.* Java imports, so consumer code still needs a manual package migration regardless.
Sources: Apache Maven — Guide to relocation, Gradle — The Maven Publish Plugin, Relocation of Maven Package in Maven Central

Why is this needed:

The upstream spec project completed its rename to Open Workflow Specification. Keeping the old
io.serverlessworkflow naming in Maven coordinates and Java packages after the spec's rebrand is
confusing for consumers and inconsistent with the already-updated README/org references. 8.0.0 (major
version bump) is the right place to make this breaking change.

@ricardozanini

cc: @ricardozanini @fjtirado

The namespace should be either (a) cloud.openworkflow or (b) org.openworkflowspec to mimic our DNS. I tend to like "(a)" more, but I'm ok with both.

@mcruzdev

@mcruzdev what is iml? And why do we need to do something on maven? Already published versions use the old groupId and new version will use the new groupId
To be honest, Im not a fan of renaming the java packages,I do not think the package name must match the product/groupId name. It is dserirable? yes, it is mandatory? no, in my opinion (unless, for some reason, we are legally required to do so). I would just change the groupId-artifactId on Maven, which I agree might be confusing (and probably legally we must do anyway)

If we are going to change the package names, I think we have to break backward compatibility and my preference both for package and group id is org.openworkflow (cloud is confusing, the engine can be run embedded into a regular JVM)

@fjtirado

@fjtirado we MUST change the package names to match the new CNCF re-branding. It will be a new major version anyway. We can do one commit/PR just moving the files, it will keep history and authorship the same.

In Maven, we must add a note to the artifact that we have moved the group ID. It's a good thing and users will see this notice in the Maven repo website.

If we are going to change the package names, I think we have to break backward compatibility and my preference both for package and group id is org.openworkflow (cloud is confusing, the engine can be run embedded into a regular JVM)

org.openworkflow works ok too. cloud.openworkflow mimics our DNS: https://openworkflow.cloud/, also approved by CNCF.

@ricardozanini

@ricardozanini Why we must? Wildfly and EAP still has packaged that refers to former project name, jboss.
I think Maven group/artifact id is a completely different thing than the java package name.

@mcruzdev

@mcruzdev also, we shoudl rename all modules in the repo, not just the nine that the description is mentioning. I mean, we do not need to single out them, I think is enough with saying that ALL modules needs to be rebrand.

@mcruzdev

@mcruzdev what is iml?

It is related to IDEA files, sorry.

@ricardozanini Why we must? Wildfly and EAP still has packaged that refers to former project name, jboss. I think Maven group/artifact id is a completely different thing than the java package name.

Those are not CNCF projects :)

Ok, lets change the package name to org.openworkflow. It is just renaming all files in the repo from io.serverlessworkflow to org.openworkflow. But before doing that we need to branch main.

Yes, just let me know when you guys consider 7.x done, and I'll branch 7.x.

8.0.0 should be rebranding + Jackson 3.x migration.

@ricardozanini

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Rebrand to Open Workflow Specification #1676

3 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Rebrand to Open Workflow Specification #1676

Description

Activity

mathecruz commented on Sep 16, 2026

ricardozanini commented on Sep 16, 2026

fjtirado commented on Sep 16, 2026

ricardozanini commented on Sep 16, 2026

ricardozanini commented on Sep 16, 2026

fjtirado commented on Sep 16, 2026

fjtirado commented on Sep 16, 2026

mathecruz commented on Sep 16, 2026

ricardozanini commented on Sep 16, 2026

fjtirado commented on Sep 16, 2026

ricardozanini commented on Sep 16, 2026

fjtirado commented on Sep 17, 2026

3 remaining items

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions