The purpose is that we have a monolithic core today mostly providing abstract classes.
The idea is to have something more API oriented with interface/SPI. Our users would then be able to pick the part of the core they want, resulting with lighter artifacts, and for us, it gives a more flexible approach. Regards JB On 10/10/2018 10:26, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > My question was not whether we should split the repo, but why? (Dividing > things into more (or fewer) modules withing a single repo is a separate > question.) Maybe I'm just not following what you mean by "more API > oriented." It would force stabler APIs. > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:18 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote: > > 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 > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com <mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com> > <mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com <mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com>>> 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 > jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
