Develop Reference

What is the significance of packages in java? [duplicate]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a newbie and just learned that if I define say
package my.first.group.here;
...
then the Java files that are in this package will be placed under my/first/group/here directory.
What is the main purpose of putting some Java files in a package? Also, if I choose to adopt this, how should I group them?
Thank you
EDIT: For anyone who might have the same question again, I just found this tutorial on packages from Sun.

Let's start with the definition of a "Java package", as described in the Wikipedia article:
A Java package is a mechanism for
organizing Java classes into
namespaces similar to the modules of
Modula. Java packages can be stored in
compressed files called JAR files,
allowing classes to download faster as
a group rather than one at a time.
Programmers also typically use
packages to organize classes belonging
to the same category or providing
similar functionality.
So based on that, packages in Java are simply a mechanism used to organize classes and prevent class name collisions. You can name them anything you wish, but Sun has published some naming conventions that you should use when naming packages:
Packages
The prefix of a unique package name is
always written in all-lowercase ASCII
letters and should be one of the
top-level domain names, currently com,
edu, gov, mil, net, org, or one of the
English two-letter codes identifying
countries as specified in ISO Standard
3166, 1981.
Subsequent components of the package
name vary according to an
organization's own internal naming
conventions. Such conventions might
specify that certain directory name
components be division, department,
project, machine, or login names.
Examples:
com.sun.eng
com.apple.quicktime.v2
edu.cmu.cs.bovik.cheese

I a large application, you are bound to have two files named exactly the same (java.util.Date and java.sql.Date), especially when you start bringing in third party jars. So basically, you can use packages to ensure uniqueness.
Most importantly, in my opinion, packaging breaks down projects into meaningful segments. So my SQL package has sql-related code, and my logger package handles logging.

In addition to the namespacing mentioned in other answers, you can limit access to methods and fields based on the scope declared on that member.
Members with the public scope are freely accessible, to limit access you normally define them as private (i.e. hidden outside the class).
You can also use the protected scope to limit access to the type and its children.
There is also the default scope (a member with no qualifier has the default scope) which allows child types and types in the same package access to the member. This can be an effective way of sharing fields and methods without making them too widely available, and can help with testing.
For example the method below would be visible to all other members of the same package.
public class Foo {
int doSomething() {
return 1;
}
}
To test the method you could define another type in the same package (but probably a different source location), that type would be able to access the method.
public class FooTest {
#Test
int testDoSomething() {
Foo foo = new Foo();
assertEquals(1, foo.doSomething());
}
}

It allows the program to be composed from multiple different programs/components/libraries, so that their class names will not conflict and the components are easier to organize. See http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/package/index.html
In Java it's customary to name packages as reverse domain names. For example, if your company's domain is "initech.com" and you are making a program called "Gizmo", the package names are typically prefixed "com.initech.gizmo", with subpackages for different components of the program.

Packages are important for giving flexibility of classes separation. They can be used for:
separating projects
separating modules
separating application layers (business, web, dao)
further finer grained code separation
For example
com.mycompany.thisproject.thismodule.web
Could indicate the web layer of some module.

Ultimately, there are 3 core reasons we want to use packages in Java.
1) Easier Maintenance
Organizing classes into packages follows the separation of concerns principle by encapsulation and allows for better cohesion in the overall system design. Moving further, packaging-by-feature allows teams of developers to find relevant classes and interfaces for making changes, supporting vertical-slicing techniques for scaled approaches used in agile methodology. For more information, see blog post: Package your classes by Feature and not by Layers and Coding: Packaging by vertical slice.
2) Provide Package security
Packages allow external access to only public access modifiers on methods in contained classes. Using the protected or no modifier will only be accessible to classes within the same package. For more information, see post:
Which Java access modifier allows a member to be accessed only by the subclasses in other package?
3) Avoid similar naming
Similar to the namespaces of .NET, class names are contained within the scope of their containing package. This means that two mutually exclusive packages can contain classes with the same name. This is because the packages themselves have different names and therefore, the fully qualified names are different. For more information, see tutorial [Naming a Package: The Java Tutorials][3].

From the Wikipedia page on the topic:
"A Java package is a mechanism for organizing Java classes into namespaces similar to the modules of Modula. Java packages can be stored in compressed files called JAR files, allowing classes to download faster as a group rather than one at a time. Programmers also typically use packages to organize classes belonging to the same category or providing similar functionality."

also, if i choose to adopt this, how
should i group them?
This depends largely on the design pattern(s) you will employ in your project. For the most part (particularly, if you're quite new) you'll want to group them by functionality or some other logical similarity.

Other people have provided very Java-specific answers which are fine, but here's an analogy: why do you organize files into directories on your hard drive? Why not just have a flat file system with everything in one directory?
The answer, of course, is that packages provide organization. The part of the program that interfaces with the database is different than the part of the program that displays a UI to the user, so they'll be in different packages.
Like directories, it also provides a way to solve name conflicts. You can have a temp.txt in a couple different directories in the same way that you could have two classes that appear in different packages. This becomes important (1) when you start combining code with other people out there on the internet or (2) even realize how Java's classloading works.

Another important thing about packages is the protected member for access control.
Protected is somewhere between public (everyone can access) and private (only class internal can access). Things marked as protected can be accessed from within the same package or from subclasses. This means that for limited access you don't have to put everything in the same class.

Java is very exact in its implementation. It doesn't really leave room for fudging.
If everyone were to use the same package, they would have to find some "World Wide" way to ensure that no two class names ever collided.
This lets every single class ever written fit into its own "Place" that you don't have to look at if you don't want to.
You may have different "Point" objects defined in 4 different places on your system, but your class will only use the one you expect (because you import that one).
The way they ensure that everyone has their own space is to use your reverse domain, so mine is "tv.kress.bill". I own that domain--Actually I share it with my brother "tv.kress.doug" and even though we share the same domain, we can't have a collision.
If a hundred divisions in your company each develop in Java, they can do so without collision and knowing exactly how to divide it.
Systems that don't do this kind of division seem really flaky to me now. I might use them to hack together a script for something personal, but I'd feel uncomfortable developing anything big without some strict packaging going on.

Android App Architecture : How should the packages be formed?

I am new to android programming. I often see that programmers create packages as collection of activities, fragments, adapters, etc. To me it seems more intuitive to put all java code required for an activity/screen in one place. For example: For home screen, I will keep the activity, fragments, adapters, custom views, etc all at one place.
Is there is any definite reason the the general practice or is it just a traditional practice ?

This has to do with creating components, reusable objects and code maintenance in a codebase as it grows. Your approach will work for a small application, and there is no rule against it. However, generally creating package/file structures according to the recommended and common approaches makes it easier to make modifications to code and work with others on the same project. Consider the following:
If you have many Activities spread across many packages or folders, then someone tasked with changing the UI will have to traverse those packages. That makes it difficult to identify UI patterns that could be used across Activities and even harder to use those patterns, since you will need to implement them in each package/folder.
This also creates a problem seeing less obvious patterns in non-UI components like data object models, view controllers, etc. For example, if you need a "user" object in two different Activities do you create 2 different objects? This is not reusable code.
So let's say you decide to reuse the "user" object so that you only have 1 class. Then do you sub-class in the other packages that need it in order to follow your pattern? Then if one UI element needs a new method, do you implement it in just that place? Or the base object?
Or do you make the "user" object public and reference it from other packages/folders? If this is your answer then you will begin to create objects in places based on the evolution of the code, instead of based on logic or ease of maintenance. Among other things, this makes it very difficult to train a new person on "where everything is" in your codebase. The "user" object will sit in one place, and then the "user account" object ends up where it is first needed, but not likely to be with the "user" object.
As a project grows to hundreds of classes, I think it is obvious that this approach becomes unmanageable for many applications. Classes will appear in packages based on the UI requirement, not based on the function it performs. Maintaining them becomes challenging.
For example in the case of Lollipop to Marshmallow, Apache http became deprecated. If you had this dependency scattered throughout your project, then you will be looking in a lot of places at how to handle this change. On a small project that might be fine, but on a larger project if you try to do this while other development is taking place, this can become a real mess since you are now modifying across many packages and folders instead of in only a few locations.
If, however, you have a Data Access Layer or Model Layer components that encapsulate the behavior in one or several folders, then the scope of your changes is easier to see to those around you. When you merge your changes into the project, it is easy for the people you work with to know if other components were impacted.
So while it is not necessary to follow these guidelines (especially for small projects), as a project grows and several or many people become involved in the development, you will see variations but the general practice is to group by purpose or function rather than group by UI / visual component. If you start off with some of this in place, you will have less work later to deal with the change. (However, starting with too much structural support early in a project can put the project at risk of never being completed...)
Several answers provides links to the guidelines. I hope this answer helps to explain why those guidelines exist, which I believe is at the heart of your question.

Is there is any definite reason the the general practice or is it just
a traditional practice ?
Yes. In my current application I have over 50 custom UI views and a few activities. At least 10 singleton controller and a lot of database model. So to not lost in the project, I'm using a tidy structure like this:
Activity
Adapter
Controller
Native
Model
-Database
-Rest
Ui
I suggest you to use this structure.

There are no official rules, well maybe best practices which I have not in mind.
I so we get now a opinion based answer:
I use the package names for grouping classes to a logical topic like adapters, activities, etc.
If you want another structure do it like you want, just it could confuse other devs.
Keep in mind that the package name should be unique so you should use a prefix like a domain you own or you are allowed to use (in reversed order of cause).
Check also this link where are some more ideas pointed out: http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=205
The first question in building an application is "How do I divide it up into packages?". For typical business applications, there seems to be two ways of answering this question.
Package By Feature
Package-by-feature uses packages to reflect the feature set. It tries to place all items related to a single feature (and only that feature) into a single directory/package. This results in packages with high cohesion and high modularity, and with minimal coupling between packages. Items that work closely together are placed next to each other. They aren't spread out all over the application. It's also interesting to note that, in some cases, deleting a feature can reduce to a single operation - deleting a directory. (Deletion operations might be thought of as a good test for maximum modularity: an item has maximum modularity only if it can be deleted in a single operation.)

Normally the activities are places in the main package and fragments, adapters, utils, models in their own packages like fragments in fragments packages and ISODateParser class could go into utils package.
You can find more about it in the Android Best Practices guide which contains best practices for android.
The guidelines about which classes should be placed under which packages are discussed under the Java packages architecture heading in the guide.
Hope it Helps!

Are there best practices for (Java) package organization? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last year and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
A little while ago, I saw a question answered here regarding the fine-grained organization of Java packages. For example, my.project.util, my.project.factory, my.project.service, etc.
Are there best practices with regards to the organization of packages in Java and what goes in them?
How do you organize your classes in your Java project?
For instance, a project I'm working on with a few people has a package called beans. It started out being a project containing simple beans, but it has ended up (through poor experience and lack of time) containing everything (almost). I've cleaned them up a little, by putting some factory classes in a factory package (classes with static methods that create beans), but we have other classes that do business logic and others that do simple processing (not with business logic) like retrieving a message for a code from a properties file.

I organize packages by feature, not by patterns or implementation roles. I think packages like:
beans
factories
collections
are wrong.
I prefer, for example:
orders
store
reports
so I can hide implementation details through package visibility. Factory of orders should be in the orders package so details about how to create an order are hidden.

Package organization or package structuring is usually a heated discussion. Below are some simple guidelines for package naming and structuring:
Follow Java package naming conventions
Structure your packages according to their functional role as well as their business role
Break down your packages according to their functionality or modules. e.g. com.company.product.modulea
Further break down could be based on layers in your software. But don't go overboard if you have only few classes in the package, then it makes sense to have everything in the package. e.g. com.company.product.module.web or com.company.product.module.util etc.
Avoid going overboard with structuring, IMO avoid separate packaging for exceptions, factories, etc. unless there's a pressing need.
If your project is small, keep it simple with few packages. e.g. com.company.product.model and com.company.product.util, etc.
Take a look at some of the popular open source projects out there on Apache projects. See how they use structuring, for various sized projects.
Also consider build and distribution when naming (allowing you to distribute your API or SDK in a different package, see the servlet API)
After a few experiments and trials, you should be able to come up with a structuring that you are comfortable with. Don't be fixated on one convention, be open to changes.

Short answer: One package per module/feature, possibly with sub-packages. Put closely related things together in the same package. Avoid circular dependencies between packages.
Long answer: I agree with most of this article

I prefer feature before layers, but I guess it depends on your project. Consider your forces:
Dependencies
Try minimize package dependencies, especially between features.
Extract APIs if necessary.
Team organization
In some organizations teams work on features and in others on layers.
This influence how code is organized, use it to formalize APIs or
encourage cooperation.
Deployment and versioning
Putting everything into a module make deployment and versioning
simpler, but bug fixing harder. Splitting things enable better
control, scalability and availability.
Respond to change
Well organized code is much simpler to change than a big ball of mud.
Size (people and lines of code)
The bigger the more formalized/standardized it needs to be.
Importance/quality
Some code is more important than other. APIs should be more stable then the implementation. Therefore it needs to be clearly separated.
Level of abstraction and entry point
It should be possible for an outsider to know what the code is about, and where to start reading from looking at the package tree.
Example:
com/company/module
+ feature1/
- MainClass // The entry point for exploring
+ api/ // Public interface, used by other features
+ domain/
- AggregateRoot
+ api/ // Internal API, complements the public, used by web
+ impl/
+ persistence/
+ web/ // Presentation layer
+ services/ // Rest or other remote API
+ support/
+ feature2/
+ support/ // Any support or utils used by more than on feature
+ io
+ config
+ persistence
+ web
This is just an example. It is quite formal. For example, it defines two interfaces for feature1. Normally that is not required, but it could be a good idea if used differently by different people. You may let the internal API extend the public.
I do not like the 'impl' or 'support' names, but they help separate the less important stuff from the important (domain and API). When it comes to naming, I like to be as concrete as possible. If you have a package called 'utils' with 20 classes, move StringUtils to support/string, HttpUtil to support/http and so on.

Are there best practices with regards to the organisation of packages in Java and what goes in them?
Not really, no. There are lots of ideas, and lots opinions, but real "best practice" is to use your common sense!
(Please read No best Practices for a perspective on "best practices" and the people who promote them.)
However, there is one principle that probably has broad acceptance. Your package structure should reflect your application's (informal) module structure, and you should aim to minimize (or ideally entirely avoid) any cyclic dependencies between modules.
(Cyclic dependencies between classes in a package / module are just fine, but inter-package cycles tend to make it hard understand your application's architecture, and can be a barrier to code reuse. In particular, if you use Maven you will find that cyclic inter-package / inter-module dependencies mean that the whole interconnected mess has to be one Maven artifact.)
I should also add that there is one widely accepted best practice for package names. And that is that your package names should start with your organization's domain name in reverse order. If you follow this rule, you reduce the likelihood of problems caused by your (full) class names clashing with other peoples'.

I've seen some people promote 'package by feature' over 'package by layer', but I've used quite a few approaches over many years and found 'package by layer' much better than 'package by feature'.
Further to that, I have found that a hybrid: the 'package by module, layer then feature' strategy works extremely well in practice as it has many advantages of 'package by feature':
Promotes creation of reusable frameworks (libraries with both model
and UI aspects)
Allows plug and play layer implementations - virtually impossible with 'package by feature', because it places layer implementations in the same package/directory as the model code.
Many more...
I explain in depth here: Java Package Name Structure and Organization, but my standard package structure is:
revdomain.moduleType.moduleName.layer.[layerImpl].feature.subfeatureN.subfeatureN+1...
Where:
revdomain Reverse domain, e.g., com.mycompany
moduleType [app*|framework|util]
moduleName, e.g., myAppName if module type is an app or 'finance' if it’s an accounting framework
layer [model|ui|persistence|security etc.,]
layerImpl, e.g., wicket, jsp, jpa, jdo, hibernate (Note: not used if layer is model)
feature, e.g., finance
subfeatureN, e.g., accounting
subfeatureN+1, e.g., depreciation
*Sometimes 'app' is left out if moduleType is an application, but putting it in there makes the package structure consistent across all module types.

I'm not aware of standard practices for package organization. I generally create packages that cover some reasonably broad spectrum, but I can differentiate within a project. For example, a personal project I'm currently working on has a package devoted to my customized UI controls (full of classes subclassing swing classes). I've got a package devoted to my database management stuff, I've got a package for a set of listeners/events that I've created, and so on.
On the other hand I've had a coworker create a new package for almost everything he did. Each different MVC he wanted got its own package, and it seemed a MVC set was the only grouping of classes allowed to be in the same package. I recall at one point he had 5 different packages that each had a single class in them. I think his method is a little bit on the extreme (and the team forced him to reduce his package count when we simply couldn't handle it), but for a nontrivial application, so would putting everything in the same package. It's a balance point you and your teammates have to find for yourself.
One thing you can do is try to step back and think: if you were a new member introduced to the project, or your project was released as open source or an API, how easy/difficult would it be to find what you want? Because for me, that's what I really want out of packages: organization. Similar to how I store files in folder on my computer, I expect to be able to find them again without having to search my entire drive. I expect to be able to find the class I want without having to search the list of all classes in the package.

What is the purpose of defining a package in a Java file? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a newbie and just learned that if I define say
package my.first.group.here;
...
then the Java files that are in this package will be placed under my/first/group/here directory.
What is the main purpose of putting some Java files in a package? Also, if I choose to adopt this, how should I group them?
Thank you
EDIT: For anyone who might have the same question again, I just found this tutorial on packages from Sun.

Let's start with the definition of a "Java package", as described in the Wikipedia article:
A Java package is a mechanism for
organizing Java classes into
namespaces similar to the modules of
Modula. Java packages can be stored in
compressed files called JAR files,
allowing classes to download faster as
a group rather than one at a time.
Programmers also typically use
packages to organize classes belonging
to the same category or providing
similar functionality.
So based on that, packages in Java are simply a mechanism used to organize classes and prevent class name collisions. You can name them anything you wish, but Sun has published some naming conventions that you should use when naming packages:
Packages
The prefix of a unique package name is
always written in all-lowercase ASCII
letters and should be one of the
top-level domain names, currently com,
edu, gov, mil, net, org, or one of the
English two-letter codes identifying
countries as specified in ISO Standard
3166, 1981.
Subsequent components of the package
name vary according to an
organization's own internal naming
conventions. Such conventions might
specify that certain directory name
components be division, department,
project, machine, or login names.
Examples:
com.sun.eng
com.apple.quicktime.v2
edu.cmu.cs.bovik.cheese

I a large application, you are bound to have two files named exactly the same (java.util.Date and java.sql.Date), especially when you start bringing in third party jars. So basically, you can use packages to ensure uniqueness.
Most importantly, in my opinion, packaging breaks down projects into meaningful segments. So my SQL package has sql-related code, and my logger package handles logging.

In addition to the namespacing mentioned in other answers, you can limit access to methods and fields based on the scope declared on that member.
Members with the public scope are freely accessible, to limit access you normally define them as private (i.e. hidden outside the class).
You can also use the protected scope to limit access to the type and its children.
There is also the default scope (a member with no qualifier has the default scope) which allows child types and types in the same package access to the member. This can be an effective way of sharing fields and methods without making them too widely available, and can help with testing.
For example the method below would be visible to all other members of the same package.
public class Foo {
int doSomething() {
return 1;
}
}
To test the method you could define another type in the same package (but probably a different source location), that type would be able to access the method.
public class FooTest {
#Test
int testDoSomething() {
Foo foo = new Foo();
assertEquals(1, foo.doSomething());
}
}

It allows the program to be composed from multiple different programs/components/libraries, so that their class names will not conflict and the components are easier to organize. See http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/package/index.html
In Java it's customary to name packages as reverse domain names. For example, if your company's domain is "initech.com" and you are making a program called "Gizmo", the package names are typically prefixed "com.initech.gizmo", with subpackages for different components of the program.

Packages are important for giving flexibility of classes separation. They can be used for:
separating projects
separating modules
separating application layers (business, web, dao)
further finer grained code separation
For example
com.mycompany.thisproject.thismodule.web
Could indicate the web layer of some module.

Ultimately, there are 3 core reasons we want to use packages in Java.
1) Easier Maintenance
Organizing classes into packages follows the separation of concerns principle by encapsulation and allows for better cohesion in the overall system design. Moving further, packaging-by-feature allows teams of developers to find relevant classes and interfaces for making changes, supporting vertical-slicing techniques for scaled approaches used in agile methodology. For more information, see blog post: Package your classes by Feature and not by Layers and Coding: Packaging by vertical slice.
2) Provide Package security
Packages allow external access to only public access modifiers on methods in contained classes. Using the protected or no modifier will only be accessible to classes within the same package. For more information, see post:
Which Java access modifier allows a member to be accessed only by the subclasses in other package?
3) Avoid similar naming
Similar to the namespaces of .NET, class names are contained within the scope of their containing package. This means that two mutually exclusive packages can contain classes with the same name. This is because the packages themselves have different names and therefore, the fully qualified names are different. For more information, see tutorial [Naming a Package: The Java Tutorials][3].

From the Wikipedia page on the topic:
"A Java package is a mechanism for organizing Java classes into namespaces similar to the modules of Modula. Java packages can be stored in compressed files called JAR files, allowing classes to download faster as a group rather than one at a time. Programmers also typically use packages to organize classes belonging to the same category or providing similar functionality."

also, if i choose to adopt this, how
should i group them?
This depends largely on the design pattern(s) you will employ in your project. For the most part (particularly, if you're quite new) you'll want to group them by functionality or some other logical similarity.

Other people have provided very Java-specific answers which are fine, but here's an analogy: why do you organize files into directories on your hard drive? Why not just have a flat file system with everything in one directory?
The answer, of course, is that packages provide organization. The part of the program that interfaces with the database is different than the part of the program that displays a UI to the user, so they'll be in different packages.
Like directories, it also provides a way to solve name conflicts. You can have a temp.txt in a couple different directories in the same way that you could have two classes that appear in different packages. This becomes important (1) when you start combining code with other people out there on the internet or (2) even realize how Java's classloading works.

Another important thing about packages is the protected member for access control.
Protected is somewhere between public (everyone can access) and private (only class internal can access). Things marked as protected can be accessed from within the same package or from subclasses. This means that for limited access you don't have to put everything in the same class.

Java is very exact in its implementation. It doesn't really leave room for fudging.
If everyone were to use the same package, they would have to find some "World Wide" way to ensure that no two class names ever collided.
This lets every single class ever written fit into its own "Place" that you don't have to look at if you don't want to.
You may have different "Point" objects defined in 4 different places on your system, but your class will only use the one you expect (because you import that one).
The way they ensure that everyone has their own space is to use your reverse domain, so mine is "tv.kress.bill". I own that domain--Actually I share it with my brother "tv.kress.doug" and even though we share the same domain, we can't have a collision.
If a hundred divisions in your company each develop in Java, they can do so without collision and knowing exactly how to divide it.
Systems that don't do this kind of division seem really flaky to me now. I might use them to hack together a script for something personal, but I'd feel uncomfortable developing anything big without some strict packaging going on.

Architecture and packages

In a layered architecture, you have a presentation layer, logic layer and data layer.
So far, I've been grouping classes into domain, service and dao packages. This represents the model with POJOs/JPA Entities, the business logic and data access layer.
I suppose the domain and services could be grouped to form the logic layer but that leaves a question mark on the presentation or UI layer. Are there any conventions, even unwritten, in terms of grouping classes into packages by their nature in this layer? Or is this left to the appreciation of whoever is leading a project?
As an extra indication, I'm experimenting with web applications at the moment and using a "servlet" package to group servlets and a "web" package for ResponseHeaderFilters, ServletContextListeners and utility classes. I would be interested to hear how things are done with a desktop application.

I've never heard of package naming conventions with regard to the architecture. The only convention or 'best practise' I know is that your package names should start with a unique pattern, most often formed of a reversed domain name (like com.mycompany) or so. Just to make sure that you do not add classes from different libraries to the same package (namespace) which might lead to unexpected side effects.
But anyway, it's increases readability if you name the packages after the tier or usage. I've seen a scheme like the follwing which I personally liked because it was easy to find and identify the classes, and easy to extend:
com
.company
.product
.module1
.server
.function1
.impl
.client
.function1
.common
.function1
.impl

I've never really seen too much of an issue with this.
If you look at the class diagram for your project, you will almost instantly see logical groupings, and the tree structure of the packages tends to map easily to any grouping you need.
using the reverse domain name system (com.company.product...) you will never find a collision even within your own company.
Using Andreas_D's example, under .server and .client you may actually have an additional 3 or 4 levels of packages with dozens or hundreds of individual packages inside it if your project is large enough to warrant that.. but the structure at that level tends to come out of your product design.
Note: This similar question seems to be getting some good descriptions how to use packages: