zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norbert Kalmar <nkal...@cloudera.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Maven migration - separation of java files to server and client project?
Date Mon, 15 Oct 2018 21:54:39 GMT
Sorry, I linked the document instead of the PR. I wanted to link the
document at the beginning of the letter after "It was said here"

The PR:


On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:49 PM Norbert Kalmar <nkalmar@cloudera.com>

> Hi community!
> As outlined in the start document, it was planned to separate the java
> files to server and client, with common files in a separate common module.
> It was said here:
> "Fifth iteration - move src/java/main to zk-server, which will be further
> separated in Phase 2."
> But in order to save rebase for the contributors, I merged this into one
> step. (I had a letter about it)
> So I already created zookeeper-server, zookeeper-client and
> zookeeper-common.
> But after doing the separation, I have to say... this just hardly makes
> any sense.
> Without breaking backward compatibility by making changes in the package
> structure, it just makes the code more unreadable than before. Multiple
> packages has to be present in all 3 modules (as it was never an intention
> to separate it, so many classes are just not in their logical package, and
> even inner classes used when top level would be required for the
> separation). Client and server code can not be divided to only depend on
> common. Either server depends on client - which makes more sense than the
> other option - or client depend on server.
> (Or make common so fat, only literally a few class remains in server and
> client - which again, makes no sense).
> I created a pull request to illustrate what needs to be done, and this is
> not even half complete:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WXqhaPlCwchcWc8RCEzbCmVa4WbBDlfR3GQngikGjqc/edit?usp=sharing
> Some more detail in the description.
> My suggestion:
> forget about zookeeper-client-java and zookeeper-common, and just leave
> zookeeper-server.
> It just doesn't make any sense looking at the result, only makes the
> project much more complicated. The java code is too much tangled together.
> What would this mean if I just create zookeeper-common? All the files had
> to be renamed anyway, so some now would have 2 renames (fortunately most of
> the files are in zookeeper-server anyway), and possible another rebase for
> some PR's.
> Any input is appreciated.
> Regards,
> Norbert

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