Is `com.google.guava:listenablefuture:9999.0-empty-to-avoid-conflict-with-guava` really necessary? about guava HOT 2 CLOSED

Sadly, if ListenableFuture were in a separate artifact, then we'd be publishing 2 artifacts that have classes in the same package. That would cause problems for supporting Java modules. (I believe it would also cause problems for OSGi users, but I know less about that. We've even seen some surprises from splitting packages in "plain Java," but those might apply only to package-private APIs (which ListenableFuture doesn't have) and to package-info (which isn't currently very important for ListenableFuture).)

(I do think I officially regret failureaccess at this point :( And you make a good point that it's made worse by the difference between it and listenablefuture.)

from guava.

If there's good reason to keep things this way I'll take your word for it.

Thanks for taking the time to look into and consider this regardless, @cpovirk

from guava.