perfsonar development work

[Maciej Glowiak <>]

Roman Lapacz wrote:
> Loukik Kudarimoti wrote:
> > Hi Roman,
> >
> > Thanks for coming up with the proposal. My comments are below.
> >
> > 1) I see 'base' directory in the trunk and also as sub-directories in 
> > all other directories. Is this because the term 'base' has been 
> > overloaded?
> > If so, I suggest using the base term only in the trunk and coming up 
> > with a different term in all sub-directories to avoid confusion among 
> > developers.
> > If it is not the case of overloading but actually base being split 
> > into multiple places, see point (3) below.
>
> Generally 'base' is the set of classes which are useful by other 
> components (services or clients). I think we could have one general base 
> which will be treated as a separate library (this would be a separate 
> jar file) and the bases that would be useful only to a certain group of 
> components (for example the base only for MA services or only for client 
> apps). These specific bases would be included in the jar files of 
> services. I don't think we have to use other term for those specific 
> bases because package names are different.
>
> > 2) Move directories for each service just under the trunk directory. 
> > (example: java-rrd-ma, j-cl-mp, etc --> /perfsonar/trunk/ )
> > All services (products) will follow the recommended naming convention 
> > which will help in identifying the type of service (MA, MP, etc). 
> > Hence, it should be ok to flatten out this hierarchy.
>
> I see you point but on the other side grouping services might be more 
> clear for especially new developers. Having bundle, clients, services, 
> etc. on the same level might be less clear.
>
> > This will also make it easier to branch out and release products.
>
> I don't think it would be difficult.
>
>
> I wasn't sure to use indicators of programming language (j-*, pl-*, 
> py-*) in service directory names so I removed them. They could be used 
> if there are two services which have the same functionality but they are 
> created in different languages (see 'py-cl-mp'). But I think this name 
> should be up to a developer. Those service directory names are just 
> proposals which could be changed.
>
>
> I have attached updated proposals of snv directory structure.


Hi,

I agree with the new structure. For me having "service", "client" and 
"base" in the root directory is more clear than having all services and 
clients there.

We could consider using base and "commons" instead of "base" inside 
"service" directory, but "base" is also fine for me.

Maciej

--

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Maciej Glowiak        Network Research and Development            ||
| 

     Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center ||
| (+48 61) 858 2024          -- skype_id: maciej_psnc   GG: 4526858 ||
 ====================================================================