Agree on all counts. Especially on getting more opinions on this topic.
Your memory serves you well :). The situation you described is not a
split package.
I'd suggest staying on this thread, but identify issues separately,
discuss them separately and decide later how to deal with contentions,
because hopefully there won't be the case. So I will start with capturing:
1. How to deal with ./api? In general I have a slight preference towards
making things explicit. In this case I am mostly neutral. I would be
fine with either aob.* or oab.api.*. There is a bit of a grey area, I
think for packages like oab.entity.*, say .trait. A user would not know
immediately what bundle implements that, especially if we'd have stuff
in oab.entity.core (or whatever other convention we come up with).
2. What is the convention for implementations in multiple bundles?
Should it be for example: oab.entity.core.* or oab.core.entity.* or
something else? My preference would be oab.core.entity.*. The motivation
is that a human user would be able to quickly guess that the package is
implemented in brooklyn-core. Computers and tools don't care much.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 08/06/2015 04:48 PM, Aled Sage wrote:
Remind me: it doesn't count as split packages if org.apache.brooklyn.entity is
in one module and org.apache.brooklyn.entity.core is in another?
On balance, I'd prefer api module to be the odd one out: not to include .api in
the package names.
I'm a fan of simple interface names. IMO it reads nicer/simpler if you miss out
api.
I could be argued round though.
---
This is a big *one-off decision*.
I'm keen to get more people's opinions!
Aled
Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Aug 2015, at 17:32, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree. I am not sure what the best structure is, we can refine it while we do
the refactoring. For the api part though (which is my focus now) how do you
feel about org.apache.brooklyn.api?
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 08/06/2015 11:56 AM, Aled Sage wrote:
Hi Hadrian,
+1; makes sense to fix the split-package problem for the 0.8.0 release.
These should be different PRs from the org.apache.brooklyn, so that they
can be reviewed accordingly.
I'll need to look again at the packages to give a definite opinion on
naming. It's probably not as simple as org.apache.brooklyn.core.* in
./core:
* There are utility classes in core named brooklyn.util.*, which
should be compared with the brooklyn-util-common
(main difference is that many utils in core have dependencies on
other things in core, rather than being truly independent utils).
* I'd like us to extract the core tasks framework
(brooklyn.util.tasks) to its own module.
---
We should also review what is public (i.e. what packages should be
exported). For example, is core's brooklyn.internal.* definitely not
used by any other projects?
---
An alternative approach (definitely less appealing for me long term)
would be to use OSGi fragments. I think something like that was done in
the early days of OSGi'ifying jclouds, but don't recall the details off
hand. There's an e-mail thread [1] and a blog post about it [2].
Aled
[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jclouds-dev/FdsbfELc1o0
[2] http://iocanel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/osgification-good-bad-purist.html
On 06/08/2015 15:50, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
Hi,
I opened a new jira [1] for this. While doing my refactoring in ./api
I discovered quite a bunch of places where we have split packages
among api, utils, core, etc.
I would recommend using something like:
org.apache.brooklyn.api.* in ./api
org.apache.brooklyn.core.* in ./core
and so forth. There are also a bunch of circular dependencies and
other smaller issues that we should correct.
WDYT?
Hadrian
