Dmitri, thanks for the feedback.
The PR focus on removing the layer of directories("extensions"). It is
unnecessary and confusing. I'm glad we got a consensus here.
After the refactor, there is a top level directory named "persistence",
which holds two implementations -- EclipseLink and JDBC. I think it makes
sense to hold more persistence impl. in the future in parallel with them
like the following example shows. WDYT?
persistence/
├── eclipselink/
├── relational-jdbc/
├── mongodb/
└── .../
Yufei
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 5:16 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Yufei,
>
> Thanks for opening a dev list discussion for this.
>
> Re: PR #1724 - moving "persistence" from the "extensions" sub-dir to the
> project root level, LGTM.
>
> However, my comment in GH about dev list discussions was more general.
> Since we start moving things around in one sub-tree, I'd like to clarify
> what target repository layout is envisioned across all modules.
>
> Do you have any similar moves in mind or is this change limited only to the
> "extensions" directory?
>
> I suppose now may be a good time to have that discussion.
> Specifically having in mind the proposed NoSQL persistence (which is not
> merged yet).
>
> Thanks,
> Dmitri.
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 5:00 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I’d like to draw attention to PR #1724 (
> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1724) which reorganises our
> > persistence modules:
> >
> > -
> >
> > Moves *EclipseLink* and *JDBC* from extension/persistence/impl/* to a
> > top-level persistence/* directory.
> > -
> >
> > Aligns most Java packages from
> > org.apache.polaris.extension.persistence.impl.* →
> > org.apache.polaris.persistence.impl.*.
> > -
> >
> > *Note:* EclipseLink keeps its original package to avoid breaking
> > external integrations and because we plan to deprecate/remove
> > the module in
> > a future release.
> > -
> >
> > *No behavioural changes* – the PR is strictly a mechanical
> move/rename.
> >
> > *Why?*
> > This cleans up the repo structure ahead of 1.0, making it clearer where
> > first-class vs. extension modules live, and reduces depth in package
> names.
> >
> > I’d like to get agreement on this new layout before we merge. Please
> reply
> > with any concerns or +1s. If there are no objections within 72 hours,
> we’ll
> > proceed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yufei
> >
>
