>>> On 11/4/2010 at 6:21 PM, in message <aanlkti=oxs0t1fbsf9no5og6phqxcbjxuscm1w9kt...@mail.gmail.com>, Bernard Li <bern...@vanhpc.org> wrote: > Hi Brad: > > [I've changed the subject line to be more reflective of the current > discussions] > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Brad Nicholes <bnicho...@novell.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure that we need to physically split the web frontend from the > backend as far as the Ganglia project goes. IMO, why not just follow the > pattern that we already have in SVN under trunk. Right now we have > trunk/monitor-core which includes everything. Could we just create a new > directory under trunk called web-frontend and move everything that has to do > with the web frontend out of monitor-core and into web-frontend. From that > point on, they could both be treated as separate projects with their own > release cycles without physically splitting the code into different > repositories. Tagging and branches would also work the same way. > > That's fine. > > How about versioning? Or am I thinking too much? One potential issue > is that ganglia-core would be at 4.0 and ganglia-web will be at 3.5 -- > this might cause confusion as to what combination is supported, or > vice versa. >
As far as versioning goes, I think that ganglia-web would just follow its own version scheme. The frontend might have to include some kind of check on the version of the backend to make sure that it is compatible. I'm not sure how flexible the frontend could be, but since all it is doing is consuming XML, I am guessing that it could be fairly flexible when it comes to backward compatibility. I am guessing that the most likely scenario is that a user would upgrade the frontend a lot more frequently than the backend. So there probably wouldn't have to be much need to worry about an older frontend having to support a newer backend. I think it would be a natural thing for a Ganglia user to automatically upgrade the frontend whenever the backend is upgraded. But they would probably upgrade the frontend routinely wthout a backend upgrade. Anyway, yes I think you are thinking too much :-) Documenting compatibility would probably be sufficient. Of course we as the Ganglia developers, wouldn't be able to test every new release of the frontend with every previous release of the backend. But like I said, since the frontend is just consuming XML, it should be flexible enough to handle backwards compatibility. Also the fact that the XML schema isn't expected to change, at least no drastically, within a major version of the backend, backward compatibility should be simple. Brad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Ganglia-general mailing list Ganglia-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-general
