On 20/04/07, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Godfrey wrote: > At the moment the Java and C++ projects are fairly distinct to the > point of being barely interoperable. I agree that needs some work. > I think we might be in a better position if we organise ourselves on > functional rather than technical lines. I'm not convinced re-organising the directory would improve things. > At the moment I do wonder what coherence there is to Qpid as a > whole... Again, I agree, but this is to me more about coordination, communication and actually spending time aligning the codebases where that is feasible and sensible. I don't think the particular nesting of directories makes much of a difference. In fact it would seem to use time better spent on e.g. interop tests or defining common client api principles. [...] > But it is also our way of thinking ... we identify ourselves as > working on the "C++" or "Java" (or Python, .NET or whatever) rather > than thinking about working on the client or the broker or the > management console. Since we are never going to have everyone able > to work on all codebases, I think at some level it makes sense to > organise our project along a functional split. I see there being several different components. A client component for c++, java, c#, python & ruby and broker components for java and c++. The client and broker components within a particular language tend to reuse some code (and e.g. build system scripts etc) between them, making it not uncommon for people to work on both. Moving from client to broker is simpler in general than moving between languages and I don't see that changing with a different layout.
Agreed... it is not about making it easier to move between... if anything it is about making it harder for people to think in the "Java" or "C++" silos. The Java and C++ brokers are substancial projects in themselves. The Qpid client libraries are separate, and could usefully exist without either broker. However the Java client should no more be tied to the Java broker than it should be to the C++ broker. The fact that there is common code between the java client and java server could be seen as just a sensible refactoring, but it is not intrinsic either to the client or the broker. The real discussion is not on the filesystem layout but on project organisation :-) -- Rob
