On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:25 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2018-02-26 13:34 GMT+01:00 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>: > > > I did most of this a few years back, and the first cut isn't too hard. > > You have to move all the proto package out though, and then slowly > > move stuff back in. > > > > Another thing to consider, though not for the first step, is that > > eventually there will be different versions of the client, depending > > on what metadata technology is in use. bookkeeper-client-thinclient > > should have very few dependencies. > > > > this is interesting > > > > > > I think we should try to do this, at least the first cut before 4.7. > > > > That's why I have raised this idea now, we will be starting 4.8 soon > > > > It would be nice to not distribute rocksdb with our client. > > > > sure > > > > > > -Ivan > > > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yes, we should split the modules at 4.8. And there is already a task > > marked > > > for it at 4.8. And yes, the tests would live at bookkeeper-server > > modules, > > > only client implementation is moved out. > > > > > > However i dont think we are there to easily split the client module by > > just > > > doing repo refactor. It has a few cleanup before split: (all classes > that > > > client and server depend on should be moved out first) > > > > > > - it need to wait BP-29. Both server and client depend on metadata > > > interfaces. The metadata api should be moved to a separate module > first. > > > - protocol is also shared between server and client. We have to move > the > > > classes to bookkeeper-proto as well. > > > - util classes need to be cleaned up and moved to common packages. > > > > > Yes I think we need to wait for BP-29 but I think it will make it for 4.7 > > > > > > > > > > > Also I think we should consider remove “bookkeeper-“ from the directory > > > name, which is redundant for dir name. > > > > nice-to-have but not so important for me > > > Thank you to all > > I do not have much cycles, and maybe I will have to focus on BP-14 but this > idea of splitting bookkeeper client has been inside my mind since I started > working on BK. > > If I won't have time now and/or other guys will be able to > sponsor/constribute I will be happy to work on this topic as soon as > possible, if not for 4.8 it will be for 4.9. > I think we should do it for 4.8 as early as possible. > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > Sijie > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:12 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Bookkeepers, > > >> Since Yahoo and Salesforce merge is close to end and DL is now inside > > main > > >> codebase, I think it is time to think about separating client side > code > > >> from server side. > > >> > > >> Initially it will be like a simple repository layout refactor, keeping > > most > > >> of the test cases inside the bookkeeper-server module. > > >> > > >> We have a mockito based framework for client side code and hopefully > in > > >> the mid term we could have client code tested mostly this way. > > >> > > >> Server sode code tests rely much on client and this is to be addressed > > as a > > >> further step in my opinion. > > >> > > >> Is it too early to make this move? > > >> > > >> Thoughts? > > >> > > >> Enrico > > >> -- > > >> > > >> > > >> -- Enrico Olivelli > > >> > > >
