On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
hbase-server is as reasonable as any, right? Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
