Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Kafka, mail # dev - code layout


Copy link to this message
-
Re: code layout
Guozhang Wang 2014-02-03, 00:14
I would vote for A just for simplicity of dependencies.
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Neha Narkhede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> I like A. It will be simpler to maintain and evolve when we add the admin
> APIs.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Steve Morin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I like A or C
> >
> > I think it will be clearer for people to separate the two.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > For the new producer code we currently added the new module
> > >    clients
> > > This builds the jar kafka-clients.jar. The core module should be
> renamed
> > to
> > > kafka-server and producer kafka-server.jar.
> > >
> > > It is the intention that the server will end up depending on the
> clients
> > > but not vice versa (or we could make a separate module for that if we
> > > like).
> > >
> > > Integration code that tests clients against the server will live with
> the
> > > server.
> > >
> > > There is some shared code between the clients and server. This is the
> > > kafka.common package. Currently this is in the clients module, which
> is a
> > > little odd. We could alternatively break it into its own module, which
> > > might be nice. However I'm not sure it really warrants its own jar
> since
> > > there isn't much point to that code on its own and having the clients
> > need
> > > two jars is kind of annoying. But maybe this doesn't matter because
> > > everyone just uses Maven?
> > >
> > > So the options are:
> > >
> > > A) Leave it the way it is: kafka-clients.jar and kafka-server.jar.
> > > B) Separate out the common code and have kafka-common.jar,
> > > kafka-clients.jar and kafka-server.jar (clients depends on common, and
> > > server depends on clients and common).
> > > C) Make a jar for each client. Currently this would be just producer
> and
> > > consumer, but in the future we could add a more well-defined an Admin
> > > client for some of the administrative functions. If there ended up
> being
> > > code that is client-specific but shared by multiple clients this could
> be
> > > problematic.
> > >
> > > Alternately I don't know if the mapping from sub-modules to jars needs
> to
> > > be one-to-one so we could seperate the clients and common code to
> enforce
> > > compile dependencies and then glump it all into one client jar. That
> > might
> > > anger the build system, though.
> > >
> > > I think I vote for (A) but don't really care much.
> > >
> > > -Jay
> > >
> >
>

--
-- Guozhang