osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Splitting the repo





Le mer. 10 oct. 2018 à 14:59, Maximilian Michels <mxm@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Hi,

I agree that splitting up Beam into separate repositories would cause
more pain than gain.

To a large degree we already have independent modules, e.g. runners/* or
sdks/*. Although this is not the case for the core. It would be
desirable to break it up further.

Think this part is ok for everyone.
 

 > possibly even with their own build system (unified only through a
 > top-level "build everything" script that descends into each subdir and
 > runs the appropriate command).

This is almost what we have. Yes, there are some dependencies on the
Beam Gradle Plugin, but even if we had completely independent build
directories, you'd still want to have a shared config/tasks across the
projects (which might bring you back to a setup similar to what we have).

One of the pain points seems to be the portability which "polluted" some
parts of the project (e.g. legacy Runners). As mentioned in this thread
that could have been solved with an abstraction. But the lack of
abstraction also forced us to adopt the portable pipeline code quicker.

Not at all. Assume we have a full build which is doing portability then 3 concurrent builds (go, python, java)
then we have "current step" in the CI but the dev are never affected by that and the build does not mess up their machines as well.

Today the main blocker is that default "profile" (script) is not matching dev persona and therefore there is no real hope to have external contributions
outside google related guys as mentionned by previous ficgures which is sad for a project promishing unification and work between communities IMHO.
 

-Max

On 10.10.18 10:51, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Yep for the split
>
> For the clean point it is quite linked to the build tools and fake env
> for not native modules for the build tool (go for gradle which is java
> first for instance). This is why having a real build which is natural
> per language would be beneficial IMO.
>
> Le mer. 10 oct. 2018 11:38, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> a écrit :
>
>     Correct, it's more "module splitting" than repositories indeed.
>
>     Regards
>     JB
>
>     On 10/10/2018 10:35, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>      > Gotcha. So this is more about dividing the code (particularly
>     core) into
>      > finer modules, rather than splitting the modules into separate
>      > repositories, right?
>      >
>      > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:29 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>     <jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      > <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     The purpose is that we have a monolithic core today mostly
>     providing
>      >     abstract classes.
>      >
>      >     The idea is to have something more API oriented with
>     interface/SPI.
>      >
>      >     Our users would then be able to pick the part of the core
>     they want,
>      >     resulting with lighter artifacts, and for us, it gives a more
>     flexible
>      >     approach.
>      >
>      >     Regards
>      >     JB
>      >
>      >     On 10/10/2018 10:26, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>      >     > My question was not whether we should split the repo, but why?
>      >     (Dividing
>      >     > things into more (or fewer) modules withing a single repo is a
>      >     separate
>      >     > question.) Maybe I'm just not following what you mean by
>     "more API
>      >     > oriented." It would force stabler APIs.
>      >     >
>      >     > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:18 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>      >     <jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>      >     > <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
>      >     >
>      >     >     Hi,
>      >     >
>      >     >     +1, even I think we could split the core even deeper.
>      >     >
>      >     >     I discussed with Luke and Reuven to introduce core-sql,
>      >     core-schema,
>      >     >     core-sdf, ...
>      >     >
>      >     >     It's not a huge effort, and would allow us to move
>     forward on
>      >     Beam "more
>      >     >     API oriented" approach.
>      >     >
>      >     >     Regards
>      >     >     JB
>      >     >
>      >     >     On 10/10/2018 10:12, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>      >     >     > Hi everyone,
>      >     >     >
>      >     >     > While IMHO it's too early to even be able to split
>     the repo,
>      >     it's
>      >     >     not to
>      >     >     > early to talk about it, and I wanted to spin this off to
>      >     keep the
>      >     >     other
>      >     >     > thread focused.
>      >     >     >
>      >     >     > In particular, I am trying to figure out exactly what is
>      >     hoped to be
>      >     >     > gained by splitting things up. In my experience, a single
>      >     project that
>      >     >     > spans multiple repos has always come with excessive
>     overhead
>      >     and pain.
>      >     >     > Of note, we recently merged the website and
>     dataflow-worker
>      >     into the
>      >     >     > main repo *exactly* to avoid this pain (though the
>     latter was
>      >     >     > particularly bad due to one of the repos being private).
>      >     >     >
>      >     >     > If need be, I don't see any reason we can't have a single
>      >     repo with
>      >     >     > directories
>      >     >     >
>      >     >     > model/
>      >     >     > website/
>      >     >     > java/
>      >     >     > go/
>      >     >     > ...
>      >     >     >
>      >     >     > possibly even with their own build system (unified only
>      >     through a
>      >     >     > top-level "build everything" script that descends
>     into each
>      >     subdir and
>      >     >     > runs the appropriate command). I'm not saying we
>     should do
>      >     this (there
>      >     >     > is value in having a single consistent build system,
>     etc.)
>      >     but it's
>      >     >     > possible. We could probably even make separate
>     releases out
>      >     of this
>      >     >     > single repo (if we wanted, though given that our
>     releases are
>      >     >     time-based
>      >     >     > rather than feature-based, I don't see much advantage
>     here).
>      >     >     >
>      >     >     > Also, there was the comment.
>      >     >     >
>      >     >     > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:35 AM Romain Manni-Bucau
>      >     >     > <rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>
>     <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>>
>      >     <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>
>     <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>      >     >     <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>>
>      >     <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>
>     <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>>>>> wrote:
>      >     >     >>
>      >     >     >> Side note: beam portability would be saner if added
>     on top
>      >     of others
>      >     >     > than the opposite which is done today.
>      >     >     >
>      >     >     > I think you brought this up before, Romain. I'm still
>     trying to
>      >     >     wrap my
>      >     >     > head around what you mean here. Could you elaborate
>     what such a
>      >     >     > structure would look like?
>      >     >
>      >     >     --
>      >     >     Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>      >     > jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>      >     <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
>      >     > http://blog.nanthrax.net
>      >     >     Talend - http://www.talend.com
>      >     >
>      >
>      >     --
>      >     Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>      > jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>      > http://blog.nanthrax.net
>      >     Talend - http://www.talend.com
>      >
>
>     --
>     Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>     jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     http://blog.nanthrax.net
>     Talend - http://www.talend.com
>