perfsonar development work

[Michael Bischoff <>]

Jeff W. Boote wrote:
> Szymon Trocha wrote:
> > Let's ask what the other developers think about proposals you are 
> > dicussing?
>
> My main opinion here is "keep it simple". I say this as someone who 
> does not look at the Java code very often, but does need to now and 
> then. Additional complexity makes the Java implementation less and 
> less useful as a reference implementation.
>
> Creating lots of directory hierarchies does not aid in maintenance or 
> comprehension of the code. And, the directory hierarchies are 
> completely irrelevant to the functionality - so it is largely 
> unimportant except with regard to maintenance and comprehension.
>
> Loukik's proposal looks to be the most simple at this point. Roman, I 
> would personally not add the service directory level. For example, 
> pS-UI might well create a service interface some day to allow for 
> tests to the desktop - or tests between two clients. Who knows?
I agree with most of the above I disagree with the service directory 
part. In the line of thinking (keeping things simple), I think that 
using the motivation of  'might be some day'  is a bit wrong.  In a 
sense that merging it all in one big directory wouldn't take much effort 
for when that time is there. Also it would probably be loaded into the 
client as some kind of component keeping it pretty separate for the rest 
of the client code. Perhaps services could be reused even.

a side note: separation(directors) gives a clear indication with respect 
to dependencies. Services for example should have cross references with 
one an other (right?) There are other techniques/tooling to check this 
and give feedback to the developer.
> However, I do agree with Maciej's suggestion that it could be useful 
> to break pS-base up into multiple jar files. I do not think multiple 
> directory hierarchies at the top of base is required to do that. SVN 
> directory structure and jar file contents do not need to have a 
> one-to-one correspondence.
>
> In terms of jar file contents, you could define it functionally like 
> Maciej suggested, or other ways might make sense as well. (Say - new 
> features in one, normal api in another, deprecated in yet another.) I 
> don't have a strong opinion on how the jar files are organized - but I 
> do hope that you keep the directory structure as simple as possible.
>
> jeff
>
> P.S. You should take my opinion here as simply a request to keep it 
> simple. It is really Loukik (as release manager) and the main Java 
> developers that have the most at stake here. And as such, their 
> opinions matter most. My main motivation is in being able to 
> understand the Java code well enough to ensure interoperability.
jar-to-directory is a pritty good point.

Beeing pretty new to the project(and thus the discussion) perhaps my 
comments should be taken with a pinch of salt.

greetings,
Michael Bischoff