On 15/03/2017 09:29, Amit Jain 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? >
Don't know about correctness but IMO it's better to separate by concerns rather than amount of code. If it won't receive that many updates as it contains only few classes so be it. Even if we release a new module at every release as monolith, like we're doing now, if the it's small it's not that bigger impact than having all the classes in one big bundle. Actually it could be better. If the module "depends" on oak (note the quotes please), we may even think about adding a specific released oak version as dependency and pull it out of the monolith release cycle (MRC). Just an idea. D.
