Hi Amit, On 15/03/2017, 10:29, "[email protected] on behalf of Amit Jain" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Team, > > There is a new contribution for azure blob storage support - OAK-4933. > This introduces a new module oak-blob-cloud-azure. This certainly seems to > be the right approach from a separation and deployment standpoint. But in > terms of code the module may only contain a few classes and also in future > if we introduce (on my horizon) support for jclouds we could unify all > under one module. > > What is the correct thing to do here? I IMHO think that even if it contains a few classes, there are/there will be for sure some external transitive dependencies that could be helpful to have in independent deployable module. I think it should not be about how many classes but rather how mature the code is and how frequently it will be updated or backported (code maturity level). I would go with a separate module for this so you can replace it, leaving the rest as is (possibly). Regrads, Arek
