Hi all, in the sideline around discussions surrounding multi-tenancy and provisioning in the scope of platform 1.0 the use of 'core' in package/artifact naming comes up every now and them.
Let me elaborate a little in the hope we can work out some compromise after which all should be silent for ever :D We use 'org.amdatu.core' as the base namespace for components that we consider to be 'core' as it it were one project with one lifecycle [0]. The multi-faceted issue is.. 1) They are logically independent. For example multi-tenancy is considered to be a set of optional packages to be deployed if one requires them. 2) They will have individual life-cycles. For example multi-tenancy will not be in the same lifecycle as provisioning. 3) Using 'core' is kind of non descriptive. It does not really add anything. In contrast to 'cassandra' or 'web' which have a clear domain and purpose. 4) Thus we end up with long packagename / symbolicnames. The proposed solution obviously is the drop the 'core' and migrate to logical packages of a more independent nature. Eg. * org.amdatu.core.tenant => org.amdatu.tenant * org.amdatu.core.log => org.amdatu.log etc. I like it, it mostly addresses the reported issues. Mostly because we will still may end up with multi-module projects (eg. tenant/api, tenant/adaptor, etc) that will eventually may have their won independent lifecycles again. Why raise this issue now? Well, this will obviously require some very invasive re-factoring resulting in backward incompatible changes. IMHO we must do it pre 1.0 or never again. WDYT? grz Bram [0] http://www.amdatu.org/confluence/display/Amdatu/Internal+naming+conventions _______________________________________________ Amdatu-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.amdatu.org/mailman/listinfo/amdatu-developers
