2010/1/6 Rick Bullotta <rick.bullo...@burningskysoftware.com>:
> It's a relatively minor thing to fix in our code.  I would suggest
> reconsidering the "retro" façade, however - it really doesn't buy you much
> and requires resources to keep it up-to-date, fattens up the JAR a bit, and
> so on.  If we're going to all move to the new version, it's best to use the
> new package and class names and not lean on a "crutch" of the retro package.
It'd perhaps require some extra resources, but it wouldn't fatten up
the JAR since it would be a separate component (if I got this right)!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org [mailto:user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org] On
> Behalf Of Tobias Ivarsson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:28 PM
> To: Neo user discussions
> Subject: [Neo] RFC: Potentially breaking changes in the upcoming 1.0 release
>
> Hi all!
>
> For our upcoming final 1.0 release we are thinking about restructuring the
> components and package names to make them at least closer to something we
> would want to live with for a considerable future. The main affected
> component at this point is the Neo4j kernel, even if other components would
> follow later on as well.
>
> What we would like to achieve with such a refactoring is a more consistent
> naming scheme, and a more descriptive naming scheme. This means that we
> would change the current core api (org.neo4j.api.core). Most of the
> interfaces would remain the same, but the package name would change to
> org.neo4j.graphdb.api. We would also change the name of the NeoService
> interface to the more descriptive name GraphDatabaseService.
>
> Since we have multiple components that implement the Neo4j Graph Database
> API (the Neo4j kernel, the remote implementation, and the upcoming HA
> system), we might at some point in the future extract the API to a separate
> component that we would call graphdb-api. The current neo component would
> thus be divided into two, graphdb-api and kernel. The class EmbeddedNeo
> would be part of the kernel component and would (even before the division of
> the components) be renamed to org.neo4j.kernel.api.EmbeddedGraphDatabase.
>
> In order to mitigate the transition to the new api we would provide a
> transitional component, lets call it retro to have a name to refer to it by.
> This component would contain the org.neo4j.api.core package and an
> implementation thereof as a facade for the new org.neo4j.graphdb.api package
> with the org.neo4j.kernel.api.EmbeddedGraphDatabase implementation.
>
> We have created a wiki page at
> http://wiki.neo4j.org/content/Component_Naming where we outline the strategy
> behind the naming structure, and list the renaming actions that would take
> place if we go through with this.
>
> Since this is a rather substantial change, we want to get your input first.
> There are a few things we would like to know from you:
>
> 1. Will a restructuring like this cause problems for your projects?
> 2. Do you think this change will result in a positive overall effect for
> Neo4j?
> 3. Do these positive effects outweigh any potential problems the change
> causes?
>
> If this goes well we plan to make similar refactorings to the index-util
> component shortly after.
>
> Cheers,
> The Neo4j team through
> --
> Tobias Ivarsson <tobias.ivars...@neotechnology.com>
> Hacker, Neo Technology
> www.neotechnology.com
> Cellphone: +46 706 534857
> _______________________________________________
> Neo mailing list
> User@lists.neo4j.org
> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
>
> _______________________________________________
> Neo mailing list
> User@lists.neo4j.org
> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
>



-- 
Mattias Persson, [matt...@neotechnology.com]
Neo Technology, www.neotechnology.com
_______________________________________________
Neo mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user

Reply via email to