Hi, I'm fine with consolidating some of the sub-modules. I'm currently preparing a pull request for YARN which will move flink-yarn out of the "flink-addons".
Regarding the "flink-" prefix: I'm voting to keep the prefix because the resulting jars will contain "flink" in their name. Its much easier to properly identify a file named "flink-core-0.8.jar" instead of "core-0.8.jar". Also, the release / nightly builds scripts would need changes if we modify the module names. On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Will this conflict with Marton's restructuring proposal which happens > in another thread (see "Project restructure" thread in the dev@ list). > > Since we are doing refactoring, may I suggest that we also remove > "flink-" prefix since maven group name will indicate it is part of > Flink. > > - Henry > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi everyone! > > > > I think that by now, quite a bit of the maven project structure can be > > improved to get rid of some legacy artifacts. Especially the > "flink-addons" > > project seems to be a catch-all place for various projects. > > > > Here is a suggestion what we could do: > > > > 1) Move "flink-yarn" to the root. > > > > 2) Move "flink-streaming" to the root (this is planned anyways for the > next > > release) > > > > 3) Create a project "flink-connectors", which will contain "avro", > "jdbc", > > and "hbase". Should we have them as separate sub-projects, or as one > > project? > > > > 4) Consolidate the examples into a single project "flink-examples", where > > Java, Scala, Streaming examples exist in different packages. > > > > > > Greetings, > > Stephan >
