All, To answer a few different points...
brooklyn or brooklyn-core: I'd definitely call it brooklyn-core, or brooklyn-server, or something, but definitely not the bareword "brooklyn". I'm assuming that we'll still want an all-in-one ready-to-run binary download for developers, and that should be named "brooklyn". IMO it would be too confusing to have "brooklyn" (which is not immediately useful to a newbie as it lacks a UI) and "brooklyn-full" or "brooklyn-workstation" for people who just want to download it and run it. brooklyn-library: we've discussed in the past that we want to move away from the all-Java blueprints as much as possible. So I'd be in favour of this module, with the medium-long term aim to be to empty it completely :-) Versioning: I think these all need to be versioned in unison, like jclouds is. Having different versions will be a recipe for confusion: "that bug is fixed in v1.2.3. You already have that? I meant v1.2.3 of the core library, not the UI. It's stopped working? Ah, v1.2.3 of the core needs at least version 1.3.2 of the UI." Richard. On 18 November 2015 at 09:04, Andrea Turli <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>> Personally I would like to see the apache/incubator-brooklyn carved >> >>>> up as >> >>>> follows: >> >>>> >> >>>> * apache/brooklyn >> >>>> * apache/brooklyn-ui >> >>>> * apache/brooklyn-library >> > > + 1 to > * apache/brooklyn > * apache/brooklyn-library > > I'm still not entirely convinced that apache/brooklyn without the UI shows > off the entire potential of brooklyn, but no strong feelings. > > Any comments? > > Andrea
