+1 for at least a separate repo for the clients. Jake makes a good point about dependencies on different toolchains. I'm not sure whether that would merit have a separate repo for each platform's client, e.g., a repo for the Java client, a repo for the C# client, etc. My instinct is to divide the software along lines that matches how people who want to develop against the client APIs think of things. For example, Netty is for Java, dotNetty is for C#, and nettyplusplus is for C++. Would the developers of Geode clients think more in terms of a client API implemented for different platforms or different platforms that have a client API?
Sarge > On 16 Jan, 2017, at 11:56, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > +1 for separate repo for sub-projects that would or could likely release > independently of the core project. I see this applying to most clients, > .net, c++, python, etc. It also cleanly separates out the build process > which is quite different between these projects. The native clients in > particular are dependent a on bunch of toolchains that aren't part of the > standard core developer's toolbox. Even if released together under the > umbrella of the Geode product it may still make sense to let them evolve > independently in their own repos to isolate the concerns between the > sources. > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:52 AM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> I’m cautiously in favor of this idea. Allowing independent parts (geode, >> geode-examples, geode-native) to progress and release at their own pace >> seems like a good thing. >> >> From a release perspective, I think each repo would have separate vote >> threads and a section on our release page: >> http://geode.apache.org/releases/ >> >> Anthony >> >>> On Jan 16, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>> I would love a separate repo. Someone told me that wasn't an option. If >>> it's an option the let's make it so. >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:20 AM Mark Bretl <mbr...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Jake, >>>> >>>> Having all the clients in the repository is nice, however, has there >> been >>>> thought to have them in their own repository? Now that we are a TLP, we >> do >>>> have that capability, as seen with the 'geode-examples' repository. >>>> >>>> --Mark >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io> >>>> wrote: >> >>
