ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org>
Subject Re: New module for C++/.Net integration.
Date Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:33:35 GMT
Have you considered the possibility of hosting these codebases in separate
Git repos?

I don't think it's a good idea to mix so many technologies within a single
source tree.

You can have a look at how ActiveMQ do it with their C++ [1] and .NET [2]
clients – one repo for each technology to keep the build and project
lifecycles sane.

[1] http://activemq.apache.org/cms/source.html
[2] http://activemq.apache.org/nms/source.html

Regards,

*Raúl Kripalani*
Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
Integration specialist
http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> I am starting migration of C++/.Net integration modules donated by GridGain
> to Ignite. I am going to put all that stuff, including Java classes, .Net
> classes and .cpp/.h files in a new module.
>
> In GridGain we first named this stuff "clients" and later "interop". But
> there are several problems with these namings:
> 1) These are not clients, but rather fully-fledged Ignite nodes operated
> through non Java-platform.
> 2) "interop" is a jargon and do not give user clear understanding on what
> API is about.
>
> Batter name for that module which comes to my mind is "platform". And
> following our standard naming conventions for Java classes there will be
> something like "PlatformDotNetConfiguration", "PlatformProcessor", etc..
>
> Any more ideas on how to name this stuff?
>
> Vladimir.
>

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