Great work so far to everyone involved in this effort. I'm under the impression that this refactoring will constitute a change in the public API contract of Oak. In reading the links it seems to hint at this but whether or not this will actually result in a public API change isn't explicitly called out.
So my first question: Is my impression accurate here? If so, the follow-up question is, do we have plans to retain backward API compatibility between 1.6 and 1.8 such that any current code relying on 1.6 API will continue to work with the 1.8 release? If backward compatibility is in the plan let's make sure it is identified in the plan; so far I haven't noticed this but surely I could have missed it. If backward compatibility is not in the plan, the next question I ask is whether the next release should actually be Oak 2.0 instead of Oak 1.8? If semantic versioning matters it seems to me this change would qualify for a major release bump. My intent isn't as much to lobby for strict adherence to semantic versioning so much as to make sure we are mindful of what appears to be a change in the public API contract and that we have a plan to manage it. -MR On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Angela Schreiber <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Michael and Oak-Devs > > Just a quick update: I added more details to OAK-6073 included a summary > of the effects on oak-core and oak-commons as well as listing changes to > non-test dependencies of most modules. > > I would like to encourage you to look at the fork and the summary and > provide feedback if you spot any problems or concerns. > > Regarding > > {quote} > I would suggest to go with a naming scheme that reflects how modules > would be grouped together in a hierarchical structure as much as > possible for now. E.g. rename oak-commons-run to oak-run-commons. > {quote} > > I would like to address this separately as it would further expand the > scope of OAK-6073, which will be open for review over the weekend. After > that I would suggest that we incorporate the refactoring into oak-trunk. > > Kind regards > Angela > > > > On 13/04/17 12:17, "Michael Dürig" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> I try to describe the changes proposed by the PoC in > >> > >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Fissues.a > >>pache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOAK-6073%3FfocusedCommentId% > 3D15965623%26pa&d > >>ata=02%7C01%7C%7Cd062470b1185427e793608d48256 > 5535%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed > >>2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636276754686224956&sdata= > W7sTOFt4hmoew%2BMR7K%2F45I > >>PvOAOSQPsaGKhWfMUWOuI%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >>ge=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels: > comment-tabpanel#comme > >>nt > >> -15965623. > >> Additionally added some step-by-step instruction on how we proceeded. > >> > > > >Thanks, this is very valuable! > > > > > >> When we first looked at it on Tuesday last week, I thought that we would > >> end the exercise with a "tried hard but failed" summary. So, I am quite > >> pleased that actually ended up with a working PoC. > > > >So am I, I'm impressed by the progress here! > > > > > >> Looking back I thing the biggest issues are > >> > >> - putting everything in oak-core was obviously convenient but it turned > >> out to be impossible to protect against boundary violations > >> - packages sometimes contain classes that not really belong together, > >>e.g. > >> - org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.spi.lifecycle containing OakInitializer > >> - oak.apache.jackrabbit.oak.spi.whiteboard containing classes that > >> should be located with the corresponding feature (e.g. user mgt, index) > >> - impl specific methods that are not defined by an API contract such as > >> e.g. ValueImpl.getBlob, ValueImpl.getOakString... this was actually the > >> only place where we added a new interface and modified existing code > >> - somehow i got the impression that we didn't manage to make consistent > >> decision wrt package naming > >> - what should go into a 'spi' package? > >> - what should go into 'plugins'-something? and how is that different > >> from spi? (and what is e.g. the diff between spi.blob and plugins.blob?) > >> - when do we create a new package space oak.somethingnew and how are > >> those packages intended to be used. > >> > >> Moving forward I think it would help a lot if we had a common > >> understanding here and come up with some description what is used for > >>what. > >> Maybe we also need to take a closer look when adding new stuff to > >>oak-core > >> while moving forward. > > > >I think this is a discussion we need to take up again in the aftermath > >of this restructuring. For now I think it is best to create JIRA issue > >for those things you had to somehow work around or leave out. > > > > > >> > >>> Quick wins? > >> > >> Well... for me the biggest win is the fact that 'oak-blob-azure', > >> 'oak-blob-cloud' and 'oak-segment-tar' no longer would depend on > >>oak-core. > > > >+1, I'm specially happy with the result for oak-segment-tar. We already > >tried last year to make this module more independent but had to revert > >eventually. > > > > > >>> Looking at the list of modules, its size and the names, did you > >>>consider > >>> switching to a hierarchical module structure? > >> > >> No, we didn't discuss that. > >> > >>> Or could this make sense later on? > >> > >> I don't have any strong preference here. We had some discussion on how > >>we > >> should align the svn structure in general and what would be the best > >>when > >> we want to start releasing modules individually. > >> > >>> Otherwise can we come up with a naming scheme that implies > >>> grouping (e.g. node store implementations, blob store implementations, > >>> etc.) > >> > >> Sure, makes a lot of sense to me. :-) > > > >I would suggest to go with a naming scheme that reflects how modules > >would be grouped together in a hierarchical structure as much as > >possible for now. E.g. rename oak-commons-run to oak-run-commons. > > > >Michael > >> > >>> > >>> Re. oak-base and oak-commons, these are probably separated to avoid > >>> circular dependencies. Is there anyway to otherwise clarify the > >>> difference between the two? I.e. if I implement a new class, which > >>> module it should go into? Would oak-base be something like oak-core-spi > >>> or even oak-spi? This would nicely dual the oak-store-spi module. > >> > >> Exactly... and actually I like the name 'oak-core-spi' a lot better. In > >> OAK-6073 I stated that IMO that module might be a tmp solution as it > >> currently contains a somewhat loose collection of packages that were in > >> 'oak-core' and didn't really fit into 'oak-commons' from my point of > >>view. > >> After all I wanted to avoid converting 'oak-commons' into a second > >> 'oak-core' :-). > >> That module is the one with the least consistency IMO. But things may > >> clarify if we move on... I definitely would love to move > >>oak.spi.security > >> and oak.security.* out of oak-core... but that probably requires a > >>second > >> round *wishful thinking*. > >> > >>> > >>> Is there plans to move document/rdb stores to separate modules or is > >>> this beyond the current scope? > >> > >> I guess that would be a natural step as we move on... but during the > >>last > >> week we didn't look into this. > >> > >> Kind regards > >> Angela > >> > >> PS: will attach simplified picture to OAK-6073 to illustrated the big > >> picture. > >> > >>> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> On 12.04.17 11:21, Angela Schreiber wrote: > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> As mentioned my Marcel this morning [0] we had some offline > >>>>discussions > >>>> related to the oak-blob-azure module and how we could independently > >>>> release it. While we didn't see a satisfying solution for the 1.6 > >>>> branch, > >>>> we concluded that we should pick up the modularisation discussion for > >>>> address this in the near future. > >>>> > >>>> Consequently a group of oak devs started to work on a PoC on how to > >>>> improve modularisation of Oak (in particular oak-core). As we managed > >>>>to > >>>> get rid of the dependency of oak-blob-azure (and oak-segment-tar for > >>>> that > >>>> matter) from oak-core with a reasonable effort, we would like move > >>>> forward > >>>> with this in oak-trunk. > >>>> > >>>> For that matter I created a new epic "Modularisation of Oak" (OAK-6069 > >>>> at > >>>> [1]) and added/linked a initial bunch of issues spotted during the > >>>> workshop and earlier. For the 'oak-blob-azure' topic I create a > >>>> dedicated > >>>> task OAK-6073 [2], where I will also add some detailed summary of the > >>>> initial effort. The latter can also be looked at on a github fork at > >>>> [3]. > >>>> > >>>> Kind regards > >>>> Angela > >>>> > >>>> [0] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fmarkmai > >>>>l. > >>>> > >>>>org%2Fmessage%2Fneoiyv5qsffo424e%3Fq%3Dazure%2Blist%3Aorg% > 252Eapache%25 > >>>>2E > >>>> > >>>>ja&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdcbd2fbcce2d43eed98208d4819a > eae0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438 > >>>>79 > >>>> > >>>>4aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636275949762279890&sdata= > sSEdgDegV4Sigh5%2B5R > >>>>1y > >>>> uZQiMUY%2F7pOmvBhxojSpDV8%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> ckrabbit%2Eoak-dev+from:%22Marcel+Reutegger%22&page=1 > >>>> [1] > >>>> > >>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Fissues > >>>>.a > >>>> > >>>>pache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOAK-6069&data=02%7C01%7C% > 7Cdcbd2fbcce2d43ee > >>>>d9 > >>>> > >>>>8208d4819aeae0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C63627594976 > >>>>22 > >>>> 89898&sdata=Gxu0MBcOz7zuobBRVSpofWBDJTV36T60bLH3Wmn1v5Q%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> [2] > >>>> > >>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Fissues > >>>>.a > >>>> > >>>>pache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOAK-6073&data=02%7C01%7C% > 7Cdcbd2fbcce2d43ee > >>>>d9 > >>>> > >>>>8208d4819aeae0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C63627594976 > >>>>22 > >>>> 89898&sdata=Xmxhr0gndLBTf4UvWiM50j7Q71yt13wpENm5SAeTVwo%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> [3] > >>>> > >>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Fgithub > >>>>.c > >>>> > >>>>om%2Fmreutegg%2Fjackrabbit-oak%2Ftree%2Fm12n&data=02%7C01%7C% > 7Cdcbd2fbc > >>>>ce > >>>> > >>>>2d43eed98208d4819aeae0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636 > >>>>27 > >>>> > >>>>5949762289898&sdata=7gBCJs5NTQkAfvE6X0aAHSjaJsXlze > 9bPrTxBRFxXZE%3D&rese > >>>>rv > >>>> ed=0. > >>>> > >> > >
