Hi Robert, I would very much like to "split the monolith" as well :-) But:
1) I think it would be easier to do it when the 2 modules are merged together since they share a great deal of closely related classes. 2) I am not sure everybody is on board with the split. I think we will need a new DISCUSS thread for that and maybe even a proposal doc. I'd suggest tackling that after the merge. Does that make sense? Thanks, Alex On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 12:31 PM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > I think we should rather use the opportunity and split the multiple > monoliths into distinct modules, which is what I've been advocating > for a "long" time ;) > > Regarding naming/where, I think we should retain "runtime" as a > container for the server and admin-tool runnables. > > WDYT? > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 12:12 PM Alexandre Dutra <adu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > 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 > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >
