trafficserver-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Kenny <jke...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
Subject Proposal for how to update source code layout.
Date Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:25:42 GMT
Hi everyone, I want to see about moving forward on the source clean up I believe we all agreed
to the last ATS summate. What I would like to get general agreement on what I plan to do to
the source layout so it is clear why and where everything will go before I start making lots
of small pull requests pulling moving source and cleaning up the build.First what are the
goals?Cleaning up the source to will proved:1)            Better clarity on where
to put new code.    a.            Making it easier to refactor code    b.           
Making it easier for others to change code2)            simplify the build code 
  a.            making it easier to use other build system if desired    b.           
making it easier for others to add or remove code3)            untangle the dependency
mess of everything needing everything else4)            untangle what modules are
being built5)            Make it easier for everyone to understand the Architecture
and design6)            Make it easier to improve/cleanup  the testing systems7)           
Allow a better setup to hopefully avoid any major source layout refactors for a long time I
want to clarify that this was generally agreed on by everyone at the ATS summate. We want
to avoid this unless needed. I believe people feel overall this would be a good thing, but
I want to make sure that I define the envisioned layout we will move to so we all understand
the where we are going before doing this. Ideally we will want to do the major part of this
work as fast as we can to minimize the pain as much as possible.
Before I go into the layout, I want to talk about process. I plan to break this up into phases.Phase
1 – move source to new location and any header cleanup that might be needed. Once this phase
is done we will still have dependency issues to deal with, however it should be clearer on
what is wrong, and some of the dependency issues should just go awayPhase 2 – refactor source
to deal with dependency issues, to clean up mega source files and start some cleanup of the
tests. This will make it easier to find objects and make changes in a way to that should not
make compiling more complex. It should also make it easier to understand and learn the code.
The hope I have is that will help minimize the size of any given diff. Will have more diff
overall, but these will all be small and to the point.
Now let talk about layout (finally :-) )
The current layout has something like this at the top layer/build/ci/cmd/contrib/doc/example/iocore/lib/mgmt/plugins/proxy/rc/tools
Source needed to build Traffics Server exits in /proxy, /mgmt, /lib, /cmd and /iocore. These
directories also have tests in them as well. In some case the tests and the source is mixed.
I would like to change the top level to look like this instead:/build/ci/contrib/doc/plugins/rc/src/tests/tools
We move the code in /examples, /proxy, /mgmt, /lib, /cmd and /iocore. The addition of a src
and test directory will help clarify what is the source to than traffic server application
vs that of being a test or something else, such as an example or an optional plug-in. The
code for /examples moves under /plugins, everything else under /srcIn the /src directory we
would have a layout like this:src/  api/     c/    cpp/  config/  cmd/     … 
core/     …  Infra/     … Details:api – contains all the API code for a
given language. Any new language API would be added here under a directory correctly names
for the language.config- Contains the default config file to run traffic server.cmd – Contains
the code for each program in a name directory.core – Contains the main modules to build
different programs under the cmd/ directory. Modules under here depend on modules in Infra,
or other modules in Core itself. Code here should be more Traffic server specific modules.infra
– Contains the support modules. Modules in here are leaf modules, may be reusable. If the
module is not a leaf module it can only depend on code in Infra and should be generally reusable.
Dependencies:Modules should not depend on other modules that depend on them. The only expectations
would be header only dependencies that don’t require link time circular dependencies.Modules
in CMD can depend on modules in API, Core, InfraModules in API can depend on modules in Core,
InfraModules in Core can depend on modules in Core, InfraModules in Infra can depend on modules
in Infra
Header Patterns:The general include pattern will be changed to #include <module/header.h>
for modules depending in on other headers. Files depending on headers in the same module will
be in the form of #include “header.h” An alternative to this layout would beSrc/  api/    c/   
cpp/  config/  mgmt/  proxy/     …  iocore/    …  lib/     … The
main difference is here is that it look like it did before. However much of the code in proxy
or mgmt would be moved to lib as it is a leaf component, or the code would be moved in to
a directory based on  module it would be used to generate, vs having lots of modules in a
given directory. Because of this I felt it might be easier to use the first layout as it contains
a simpler set of logic on where code goes.Given that we agree with the layout. The process
will be to move components that are on the leaf first and slowly move up the chain. Each commit
will be on component at a time, with changes to the source files #include and any make file
changes to allow the code to build as expected. After a component is moved that changes that
break up source can happen, where the commit will include the makefile changes and the split
source any header file changes need to support the split.
I think that is it. I will deal with “tests” after main source changes.
Any question or concerns?
Jason
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message