A handful of unrelated thoughts, maybe overthinking things and I don't feel strongly about anything below, but renaming is always pain so it'd be nice to ensure we have something future proof.
1) Is there any benefit organizationally to having all backends being in the same directory? 2) From a sorting perspective, it'd be nice if the scala projects were together, so having it be scala-parser and scala-unparser rather than parser-scala and unparser-scala has advantages. 3) Maybe the scala parser/unparser should be considered the same "scala" runtime, and so parser/unparser should be subdirectories of a "daffodil-backend-scala" subdirectory? 4) Is there even a benefit to separating parser/unparser into separate jars? There's so much shared logic between the two, and there's even a bunch of unparsing stuff in the parser jar. Should we just combine them under the same backend? Taking all of the above into account, perhaps something like this: ... |-- daffodil-backends | |-- daffodil-scala | | `-- src | `-- daffodil-generator-c | `-- src |-- daffodil-lib | `-- src |-- daffodil-schema-compiler | `-- src ... 5) Is there something better than "backend" for describing these. I can't think of anything. Does the DFDL spec have a concept of this? 6) Are there any benefits to using "codenames". My thinking is maybe someday there could be multiple "scala" backends with different goals/extensions, and so "daffodil-scala" is too generic. Codenames would be more like what we have today, except real code names might be easier to remember than "runtime1" and "runtime2". Disadvantage is there's less discoverability, but a README could be added with short descriptions about what the backends try to accomplish. Not sure I like this, but thought I'd throw it out there. On 10/5/20 10:23 AM, Beckerle, Mike wrote: > +1 from me. > > ________________________________ > From: Interrante, John A (GE Research, US) <inter...@research.ge.com> > Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 9:28 AM > To: dev@daffodil.apache.org <dev@daffodil.apache.org> > Subject: Subproject names proposed for discussion > > Steve Lawrence and I would like to bring a topic to the dev list for > discussion since not everyone is paying attention to the review of my > runtime2 push request. Steve suggested, and I agree, that renaming some of > the Daffodil subprojects might make their meanings more obvious to newcomer > devs. If we do rename some subprojects after discussing it on this list, we > will do it immediately in its own pull request since mixing changes with > renames makes it difficult to see which changes are just renames instead of > actual changes. > > What do devs think about us renaming some subprojects like this? > > rename daffodil-core to daffodil-schema-compiler > leave daffodil-lib alone > rename daffodil-runtime1 to daffodil-backend-parser-scala > rename daffodil-runtime1-unparser to daffodil-backend-unparser-scala > rename daffodil-runtime2 to daffodil-backend-generator-c > >
