On 6.8.15 11:50 , Thomas Mueller wrote:
seven years ago we are constantly moving towards smaller and more
>specific modules (OSGi bundles in that case), even though we already
>have many of them.
Having many many Maven projects makes it very hard to understand and
follow the code in my view. It's not spagetti code but ravioli code (in
the sense of an anti-pattern). See also
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2052017/ravioli-code-why-an-anti-pattern
I neither like Sling's "constantly moving towards smaller and more
specific modules" as too me this seems to be mostly driven by OSGi as a
technology and not by modularisation as a way to balance complexity,
maintainability and reusability. This might be opinionated and ignorant
due to my overall lack of Sling knowledge though. So let's not get
sidetracked with a Sling fight here ;-)
> Having many many Maven projects makes
See my proposal. This is not about having many Maven projects but
reasonable module boundaries. The definition of which is low cohesion
between modules and hight cohesion within them.
To quote from the Wikipedia article linked from the Stackoverflow post
you cited (emphasis mine): "While generally desirable from a coupling
and cohesion perspective, *overzealous separation* and encapsulation of
code can bloat call stacks and make navigation through the code for
maintenance purposes more difficult."
"overzealous separation" being key here!
Michael
