Hi again, I understand that we haven't reached a full consensus on this topic yet. But since some people showed interest in seeing it implemented, I will go ahead and prepare the PR so that we can see what it would look like.
More specifically I will: - Merge the 2 modules - Rename all the packages in the resulting module having a ".quarkus." token - Rename all the classes in the resulting module having a "Quarkus" prefix Thanks, Alex On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 8:11 PM Alexandre Dutra <adu...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Dmitri, > > Thanks for your reply. My proposal doesn’t affect how > polaris-runtime-defaults is “pulled in” by downstream builds. > > We can, however, explore ways to make the downstream integration experience > better, but imo only *after* the merge. > > Thanks, > Alex > > Le jeu. 31 juil. 2025 à 19:56, Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> a écrit > : >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> Unifying polaris-service-common and polaris-runtime-service sounds good to >> me. >> >> Re: config, I suppose it should not be an issue to have Quarkus (or >> Smallrye) dependencies in any "service" modules. >> >> Side note: I'd like to exclude polaris-runtime-defaults from the transitive >> dependency chain and only depend on it directly from leaf runtime artifacts >> (admin and server). The reason for this is to simplify downstream builds >> that reuse common services (having multiple application.properties in a >> Quarkus build env. is a nightmare :) ). I hope this will not interfere with >> your proposal. I'm mentioning it here only because it affects >> the polaris-runtime-service module (IIRC). >> >> Cheers, >> Dmitri. >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:36 PM Alexandre Dutra <adu...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > > I mentioned smallrye-config, not Quarkus, so you _can_ annotate those. >> > >> > Fair point: you are absolutely right. We *could* do things the other >> > way around, and move the configuration classes from the >> > polaris-runtime-service module to the polaris-service-common module. >> > >> > BUT: my main point for proposing this change still holds: *the two >> > modules do not have a clearly defined purpose*. Both have code for >> > e.g. authentication, events, persistence, storage, task handling, etc. >> > etc. >> > >> > This doesn't look to me as a desirable state. I think that if classes >> > that perform the same actions could live next to each other, that >> > would be beneficial to the developer experience. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Alex >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 6:46 PM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: >> > > >> > > > That's not possible because there are no Quarkus dependencies in that >> > module, so you can't annotate with @WithDefault, for example. >> > > >> > > I mentioned smallrye-config, not Quarkus, so you _can_ annotate those. >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 6:34 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > +1. Thanks Alex for driving this. Other than the benefits discussed >> > like >> > > > removing the duplicated config classes like >> > > > `QuarkusStorageCredentialCacheConfig`, or removing `.quarkus.` in the >> > > > package name, we can finally put classes like S3AccessConfig >> > > > and StsClientsPool into the right package. >> > > > >> > > > Yufei >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 8:45 AM Eric Maynard <eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > 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 >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> >
