The project already *has* adopted Quarkus for good, so I think making the
module structure reflect that is fine. In addition to the configuration
issue, which is significant, I think cutting down on the number of modules
we publish is a noble goal.

—EM

On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 00:43 Alexandre Dutra <adu...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> > I think we can get away by having the smallrye-config annotations on the
> "parent" interface.
>
> That's not possible because there are no Quarkus dependencies in that
> module, so you can't annotate with @WithDefault, for example.
>
> Indeed merging those two modules would mean that we're adopting
> Quarkus for good, but I think that at this point, nobody would object.
>
> In this merge, we could also remove the ".quarkus." bits from package
> names and remove the "Quarkus" prefix of many classes. I think this
> would result in a much more readable code, but that's just my opinion
> :-)
>
> My long-term vision is that, after the merge, we could also consider
> splitting the resulting "uber-module" into smaller, concern-specific
> modules like "polaris-service-auth", "polaris-service-telemetry",
> "polaris-service-events", etc. This approach would make it much
> simpler for integrators to implement their own customizations (and
> brings no downsides for regular users).
>
> But this needs to be done in two steps: first, merge the current two
> modules; then, split the result.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:22 PM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote:
> >
> > Is the issue here just the configuration types or is there more?
> > For the config types, I think we can get away by having the
> > smallrye-config annotations on the "parent" interface.
> >
> > My concern is that polaris-runtime-service is rather the Quarkus
> specifics.
> > CDI is great, just Quarkus isn't the only enterprise-CDI runtime.
> > Spoiler: I do *not* think that Polaris should move away from Quarkus.
> >
> > But for sole testing purposes Quarkus is quite expensive, too
> > expensive IMO to make it a necessity for all tests.
> > Sure, not all tests have to be `@QuarkusTest`s, but I could imagine
> > that there will be tests that do not need Quarkus are annotated as
> > such.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 12:19 PM Alexandre Dutra <adu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The polaris-service-common module is a reminiscence of the times where
> > > we were still supporting two runtimes.
> > >
> > > I think it has now become obsolete, and could be merged into
> > > polaris-runtime-service.
> > >
> > > One annoyance that polaris-service-common brings is with configuration
> > > classes that have to exist in both modules (e.g.
> > > AuthenticationConfiguration vs QuarkusAuthenticationConfiguration).
> > >
> > > Would we be OK with this merge? If so I'm happy to provide the PR.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alex
>

Reply via email to