Hi, +1, even I think we could split the core even deeper.
I discussed with Luke and Reuven to introduce core-sql, core-schema, core-sdf, ... It's not a huge effort, and would allow us to move forward on Beam "more API oriented" approach. Regards JB On 10/10/2018 10:12, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > Hi everyone, > > While IMHO it's too early to even be able to split the repo, it's not to > early to talk about it, and I wanted to spin this off to keep the other > thread focused. > > In particular, I am trying to figure out exactly what is hoped to be > gained by splitting things up. In my experience, a single project that > spans multiple repos has always come with excessive overhead and pain. > Of note, we recently merged the website and dataflow-worker into the > main repo *exactly* to avoid this pain (though the latter was > particularly bad due to one of the repos being private). > > If need be, I don't see any reason we can't have a single repo with > directories > > model/ > website/ > java/ > go/ > ... > > possibly even with their own build system (unified only through a > top-level "build everything" script that descends into each subdir and > runs the appropriate command). I'm not saying we should do this (there > is value in having a single consistent build system, etc.) but it's > possible. We could probably even make separate releases out of this > single repo (if we wanted, though given that our releases are time-based > rather than feature-based, I don't see much advantage here). > > Also, there was the comment. > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:35 AM Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Side note: beam portability would be saner if added on top of others > than the opposite which is done today. > > I think you brought this up before, Romain. I'm still trying to wrap my > head around what you mean here. Could you elaborate what such a > structure would look like? -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré [email protected] http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
