On 18.04.17 14:51, Angela Schreiber wrote:
Hi Michael
Sure... what modules do you think should be renamed? You mentioned
oak-commons-run... anything else?
Apart from renaming oak-commons-run to oak-run-commons there is:
1) oak-authentication-* instead of oak-auth-* as this would be inline
with oak-authorization-*.
2) Also it is not obvious that oak-segment-tar and oak-store-spi are
related. From that POC oak-segment-tar should be something like
oak-store-segment.
3) Further oak-example and oak-exercise: the former already has sub
modules. Maybe we can rename it to oak-getting-started (or similar) and
move oak-exercise into the renamed one.
I'm actually reluctant about 1) and 2) as renaming established modules
have quite a ripple effect. As with 3) we already have sub-modules in
one place we should probably start a discussion of switching to a
hierarchical module structure. To address 1) and 2) once the main
modularisation effort stabilised.
Michael
Kind regards
Angela
On 18/04/17 08:57, "Michael Dürig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13.04.17 15:52, Angela Schreiber wrote:
{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.
Works for me, but let's address it quickly afterwards so that those
"intermediate" module names do not get a chance to "stick around".
Michael
