+1 Separate repo for clients...Jake has valid point... -Anil.
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Michael William Dodge <mdo...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +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: > >> > >> > >
