On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Matt Corgan <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd suggest calling this first module hbase-server since the majority of > the classes are related to the master and regionservers. Then we can pull > out the fundamental classes (KeyValue, Bytes, etc) into a small module > called hbase-core. After that, we can create an hbase-client module that > only depends on hbase-core (so few or no dependencies). My main point > being that we'll want to reserve the name hbase-core for the actual core > classes and not throw everything in there. >
We don't want hbase-common and then hbase-core for sure. The first module rightly should be called hbase-bucket since its just a holding module while we do our sort-through. Can we figure a name that better conveys the module as so? hbase-hbase? hbase-bucket? hbase-99%? hbase-pick-u-part? hbase-residuum? I don't think we can go the other way and figure a module that is more 'core' than core: e.g. hbase-nucleus and hbase-core wouldn't work. St.Ack
