Gotcha. So this is more about dividing the code (particularly core) into finer modules, rather than splitting the modules into separate repositories, right?
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:29 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
