@Robert, and @Stephan, sure I am ok with it, thanks for the responses. - Henry
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > I think this works well together with Marton's restructuring. > > I would vote to keep the "flink-" prefix, because it guarantees that the > produced jars are prefixed with "flink-". Otherwise, we will have to start > configuring a lot... > > Greetings, > Stephan > > > 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 >>
