juneau-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Bognar <jamesbog...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Split Juneau into separate named subprojects?
Date Tue, 22 Aug 2017 02:27:23 GMT
Some clarification...

I'm not really thinking about this as separate TLPs, but rather a single
Juneau project with maybe named subprojects of some sort.

The reason I bring it up is that Juneau Core is a complete module on its
own.  It's been used frequently in the past minus the REST support.  But
the name 'Core' gives the impression that it's only a substrate for the
Server and Client modules....not something meant to be consumed on its own.

Maybe just a better name for Core would be sufficient?

btw, Server and Client are also independent modules.  There isn't anything
in Client that ties it to Server, and vis-versa.  That's especially true
since the addition of 3rd-party remoteable proxy support in Client.

Microservice is a different beast though.  It ties everything together into
a single 'package'.


On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 3:22 PM John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:

> I always see there being benefit to multiple git repos.  However, I'm not
> sure that this would constitute a whole subproject.
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 5:31 AM David Goddard <goddard@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > I agree on the points of potential value of splitting and the timing.
> > It may make sense to split for branding and documentation, but maybe not
> > at this stage.
> >
> > In my view, the element that is most confusing in terms of project
> > presentation and structure is the distinction between the microservice
> > API and the other Juneau components (core, plus REST server/client).  If
> > you look at the documentation (particularly
> > http://juneau.incubator.apache.org/images/Components.png), you see a
> > number of components: "core", "server", "client" and "microservice".
> > The microservice component is different enough that it would be
> > appropriate to brand separately.  The "core", "server" & "client"
> > components fit together as a cohesive whole but are currently not really
> > described as such.  Separating out the microservice part of the project
> > might address some confusion (in my perception at least) over where the
> > microservice API fits in:
> >         Juneau == core, server, client
> >         Anchorage == microservice API
> >
> > If you don't want to go as far as a separate named subproject, you could
> > go halfway:
> >         Juneau Platform == core, server, client
> >         Juneau Microservices == microservice API
> >
> > Unless I have the wrong end of the stick and by "the REST subproject"
> > James actually means to hive off Juneau Server, Client *and*
> > Microservice to a subproject, leaving just Core as a standalone.  I'm
> > not so sure of the value of this because I personally see the
> > discontinuity as being between microservices and the rest rather than
> > between core and the rest.  However, perhaps my view is coloured by not
> > being a user of microservices myself (all my Juneau projects use core,
> > server and/or client).
> >
> > David
> >
> > On 17/08/2017 21:53, Steve Blackmon wrote:
> > > There are plenty of examples of TLPs that operate one or more
> > sub-projects
> > > - sometime each has a separate management committee and sometimes not.
> > In
> > > some cases sub-projects go on to become TLPs as well.
> > >
> > > I agree that juneau-core and juneau microservice are different enough
> and
> > > each useful enough to be used, documented and branded stand-alone.
> > > However, I would propose we focus on growing one community using all
> the
> > > great capabilities in Juneau and the PMC can revisit sub-dividing into
> > > sub-projects after graduation.
> > >
> > > Sent from Astro <https://www.helloastro.com> for Mac
> > >
> > > On Aug 10, 2017 at 8:37 AM, James Bognar <jamesbognar@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I've been wondering this for a while and decided to mention it.
> > >
> > > Does it make sense to split up the Juneau Core and Juneau REST into
> > > separate subprojects? (i.e. all managed together, but externally have
> > > different names?) For example, the REST subproject would be rebranded
> as
> > > Apache Anchorage, and Apache Juneau would refer to only the core
> > > libraries. They would still belong to the same 'ecosystem' and release
> > > schedules, but would just be called by two different names externally.
> > >
> > > The core libraries are often used independently of the REST libraries.
> > The
> > > current branding strongly suggests Juneau is a REST library when it's
> > > really much more than that. The 'core' gives the impression that it's
> not
> > > meant to be used as a standalone feature.
> > >
> > > Are there any precedents for a single project being reflected as
> multiple
> > > TLP names?
> > >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message