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
