On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Matthias Friedrich <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > answers inlined. > > On Saturday, 2012-07-28, Josh Wills wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Matthias Friedrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > [ rename crunch module to crunch-core ] > >> My model for this is avro-- org.apache.avro.* is the core framework and has >> the artifactId "avro", whereas the other components are "avro-mapred", >> "avro-tool", etc. So keeping the core named "crunch" is my preference. I'm >> not all that worried about further modularization of the core. > > OK, fair enough. > >>> Module "scrunch": > >>> Maven coordinates are currently "org.apache.crunch:scrunch" but the >>> Scala packages are in "org.apache.scrunch"; I don't know if we're >>> allowed to use this namespace. If not, I'd suggest to use >>> "org.apache.crunch.scrunch" and maybe even change the Maven module >>> to "crunch-scala" (because "crunch-scrunch" sounds really, really >>> weird). > >> Yeah, we should probably do this. It's a pain, but that namespace isn't >> ours. > > OK, so the groupId stays "org.apache.crunch". What about the artifactId? > Leave it at "scrunch" or change it to "crunch-scala" or "crunch-scrunch"?
crunch-scrunch seems the most consistent, although crunch-scala is more descriptive. I'm indifferent. > > The package names should probably match groupId and artifactId. Change > the base package to "org.apache.crunch.scrunch"? Yes, I'm afraid so. > >>> Module "examples": > >>> I'd change the module name to "crunch-examples" to match the >>> artifactId. > >> +1. > > OK. > > Once we have consensus on Scrunch's coordinates I'll create a JIRA > issue for it. We should do this before our first Apache release. > > Regards, > Matthias
