1. Same as Hadrian - mostly neutral, slight preference to oab.api.* 2. +1 for oab.core.* Adding core to the duplicated package names only will be inconsistent.
>>>> 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? It is used across modules. When OSGi-fying we had to include it explicitly in the list of exported packages (internal packages are ignored by default). Svet. > On 7.08.2015 г., at 1:49, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >>>> >>>> -- Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230. Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
