geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: Internal package name structure
Date Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:08:43 GMT
+1 for #2

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Sounds good.
>
> Right now the User API for Statistics is in org.apache.geode (where it's
> been since before my time) but we could deprecate it there and move it to
> org.apache.geode.statistics.
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlmeyer@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > @Kirk, I believe that internal Geode moduels can be handled with approach
> > #2, e.g "org.apache.geode.logging.internal"...
> >
> > I believe that we should think modules with public interfaces... even if
> > the only consumers of those interfaces is another Geode module. How else
> > would we achieve complete modularity or componentization?
> > Statistics can still have 99% of its implementation in the "internal"
> > package space, but surely we would still have a public interface that
> would
> > be exposed.
> >
> > To me it makes more sense to start thinking of modules and the
> > services/interfaces they expose, rather than is it internal to Geode.
> >
> > --Udo
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > The real reason we have both is because we have some internal
> components
> > > that don't have any corresponding User API (currently).
> > >
> > > For example, we have org.apache.geode.internal.logging and
> > > org.apache.geode.internal.statistics but neither of these have a
> > > non-internal package.
> > >
> > > Do we want to start creating non-internal packages for things like
> > logging
> > > even if there are no classes in the non-internal package?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for #2
> > > >
> > > > We will need to be careful refactoring existing code if classes are
> > sent
> > > > over the wire.
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <udo@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi there Geode devs,
> > > > >
> > > > > Whilst going through the code base I found that we have 2 differing
> > > > > approaches of how we classify (or package structures) internal
> code.
> > > > >
> > > > > The first is /org.apache.geode.*INTERNAL*.module/ the other is
> > > > > /org.apache.geode.module.*INTERNAL*/.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can anyone explain the difference to me and which one is the
> > preferred
> > > > > mechanism. I vote for approach 2, where the /*internal*/ package
is
> > > > defined
> > > > > within the module/functional area.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Udo
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kindest Regards
> > -----------------------------
> > *Udo Kohlmeyer* | *Snr Solutions Architect* |*Pivotal*
> > *Mobile:* +61 409-279-160 | ukohlmeyer@pivotal.io
> > <http://www.gopivotal.com/>
> > www.pivotal.io
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message