Hello, Zhenya, Ivan. > Hello Nikolay, if i find out introduced features structure in some project, i > would prefer to choose different one )
Many, of the real world users disagree with you. Please, take a look at some examples from widely used projects: Kafka - https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/common/annotation/InterfaceStability.java#L28 - Stable, Evolving, Unstable Spark - https://github.com/apache/spark/tree/master/common/tags/src/main/java/org/apache/spark/annotation - AlphaComponent, DeveloperApi, Evolving, Experimental, Private, Stable, Unstable > Having officially "unstable" features doesn't sound good for product > reputation. Can’t agree with you. Forcing ourselves to make perfect API from the first try we just put too much pressure on every decision. Every developer making mistakes. The product is evolving and the API too - it’s totally OK. For every new feature time required to be adopted and used in real-world production. I believe, slight API changes is totally fine for early adopters. Moreover, I think, that we should warn our users that some feature is very fresh and can have issues. So, Why Kafka and Spark is good enough to have unstable API and Ignite not? :) > 9 дек. 2020 г., в 10:08, Ivan Bessonov <bessonov...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > Conversation shifted into an unintended direction, but I agree. > > I think that if API can (or will) be changed then it should be deprecated. > For that > we can introduce @IgniteDeprecated that will contain Ignite version when > API is planned to be removed. Otherwise it's either stable or experimental. > Having officially "unstable" features doesn't sound good for product > reputation. > > As for the modularization - I'm all for this idea. If we don't force > ourselves to > organize code properly then we'll end up with the same problems as we have > in the current code base. And this way there's a hope of having good tests > that can be completed in minutes, not hours. At least new ones. > > BTW, did we have any discussions about dependency injection and all this > stuff? > Seems like a related topic to me. > > ср, 9 дек. 2020 г. в 09:47, Zhenya Stanilovsky <arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid>: > >> >> >> Hello Nikolay, if i find out introduced features structure in some >> project, i would prefer to choose different one ) >> >>> >>>> >>>>> Hello, Alexey. >>>>> >>>>> Think we can extend our @IgniteExperimental annotation. >>>>> >>>>> `@IgniteExperimental` - mark features that are truly experimental and >> can be completely removed in future releases. >>>>> `@NotRecommended` - mark features that widely adopted by the users but >> implemented wrong or have known issues that can’t be fixed. >>>>> `@NotStable` - mark features supported by community but API not stable >> and can be reworked in the next release. >>>>> `@Stable` - mark features that are completely OK and here to stay. >>>>> >>>>> We should output notes about these annotations in the JavaDoc, also. >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 8 дек. 2020 г., в 12:49, Alexey Goncharuk < >> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > написал(а): >>>>>> >>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to tackle the topic of modules structure in Ignite 3. So far, >> the >>>>>> modules in Ignite are mostly defined intuitively which leads to some >>>>>> complications: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Ignite public API is separated from the rest of the code only by >>>>>> package name. This leads to private classes leaking to public API >> which is >>>>>> very hard to catch even during the review process (we missed a bunch >> of >>>>>> such leaks for new metrics API [1] and I remember this happening for >> almost >>>>>> every SPI) >>>>>> - Classes from 'internal' packages are considered to be 'free for >> grabs' >>>>>> in every place of the code. This leads to tight coupling and >> abstraction >>>>>> leakage in the code. An example of such a case - an often cast of >>>>>> WALPointer to FileWALPointer, so that the community decided to get >> rid of >>>>>> the WALPointer interface altogether [2] >>>>>> - Overall code complexity. Because of the lack of inter-module >>>>>> interaction rules, we are free to add new methods and callbacks to any >>>>>> class, which leads to duplicating entities and verbose interfaces. A >> good >>>>>> example of this is the clear duplication of methods in >>>>>> IgniteCacheOffheapManager and IgniteCacheOffheapManager.DataStore [3] >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to work out some rules that will help us define and >> control >>>>>> both Ignite public API and module internal API which still defines a >> clear >>>>>> contract for other modules. Some ideas: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Perhaps we can move all user public classed and interfaces to an >>>>>> Ignite-API module which will have no dependencies on implementation >>>>>> modules. This will prevent private classes from leaking to the API >> module. >>>>>> - We need somehow define which classes from a module are exposed to >>>>>> other modules, and which classes are left for module-private usage. >> Maybe >>>>>> Java's jigsaw will help us here, but maybe we will be ok with just >> more >>>>>> strict java access modifiers usage :) The idea here is that a module >> should >>>>>> never touch a dependent module's private classes, ever. The exported >>>>>> classes and interfaces are still free to be modified between >> releases, as >>>>>> long as it is not a user public API. >>>>>> - A module should be logically complete, thus it may be beneficial if >>>>>> module name matches with the code package it provides (e.g. >> configuration >>>>>> -> org.apache.ignite.configuration, replication -> >>>>>> org.apache.ignite.replication, raft->org.apache.ignite.raft, etc) >>>>>> >>>>>> Any other principles/rules we can apply to make the code structure >> more >>>>>> concise? Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> --AG >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552 >>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13513 >>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13220 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Ivan Bessonov
