response inline On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Sandeep Nayak <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey guys, > > I have been working on the list of TODO I sent before (copied here for > convenience) > > (a) the HelixProperty realignment as outlined in (1) above > (b) reworking some objects from config into model (see email exchange > for API rework summary 03-01-2014 thread) > (c) move more models into API, cleanup as necessary > (d) start on command objects > > I have been chipping away at (a) and (b) but have a few questions to ask > > (1) Should we rename PropertyType to HelixRecordType? > [KG] I don't like either:-). Does not really answer your question, but > here is the analogy - Each Helix propertyType maps to a table in a > database. HelixRecord is a row in the table, where HelixKey, HelixValue, > Version are the columns in the table. > > (2) ZNRecord like we discussed is now HelixValue > > (3) ZNRecordDelta for now is HelixValueDelta but will eventually move out > of API > > (4) Should we rename ConfigScope to HelixConfigScope > [KG] ConfigScope should not exist, we should have only Scope and should be used across all properties. > > (5) HelixProperty is renamed to HelixRecord which has HelixKey and > HelixValue > > (6) Should PropertyPathConfig be renamed to HelixRecordPathConfig > [KG]This should definitely be in spi and not exposed to user. > > Let me know, I have been moving classes from core/model into api/model > and dropping off the interface classes and fixing the compile issues. > The model package has references to a lot of classes in core so I am > moving constants into the api and adding reference from core to api. > [KG] I think this is a good approach. > > I will keep you guys posted when I get through (a) and (b) but would > certainly appreciate input on the above questions. > > Thanks, > > Sandeep >
