+1 to package and module naming. +1 to service definition as "component providing a high-level API to user/other components/services"
I would avoid defining strict rules for Manager and Processor. For me it just adds confusion without real value. A component can be a Manager if it manages something, a Processor if it processes something, and so on. I think having Component and Service (which is also a Component) is enough. Any component can be singleton or not - it's defined by its lifecycle. +1 to renaming core to something more meaningful, but the name lang doesn't fit for a collection of utility classes for me, I would prefer ignite-util. Apache Tomcat has the same jar, for reference. I'm also fine to leave it as is. -1 to have an "internal" package. All modules are known to be internal except api and (partially) util, so why bother at all? вт, 30 мар. 2021 г. в 12:05, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: > Agree with package and module naming. > > I just thought that > Service is a self-suffucient component and provides high-level API to > user/other components/services (e.g. RaftService to TableService). > Manager is internal component - a logical brick of the Service (e.g. > RaftGroupManager or TableSchemaManager, TableAffinityManager), it is not > self-sufficient as affinity or schema make no sense without the table. > Processor is just helper-component of the Service that routes messages, > executes async tasks, manages subscriptions and implements some secondary > functions. > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:24 AM Alexey Goncharuk < > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello Alexander, Igniters, > > > > I support the suggestion, we need to work out some ground rules to have a > > consistent naming convention. Agree with having at most one component per > > project module - this requirement may turn out to be too strict in the > > future, but now it seems reasonable and may help us to better structure > the > > code. Additionally, I would encourage us to make package names consistent > > with the module's structure to make modules Jigsaw-compliant. We do not > > have module definitions now, but I think it would be great to have them, > it > > should help us to enforce component boundaries and proper responsibility > > encapsulation. > > > > As for the naming, it's not entirely clear for me when to use the term > > Service vs Manager. Serice is an entry point to a component/server, but > so > > is Manager - a Manager defines an API that is exposed by a module to > other > > modules. Subjectively, I see the following difference between a Manager > and > > a Service in the examples of entities you provided: > > * A Manager is a node singleton. Its whole purpose is to provide an API > > gateway for other components into a particular subsystem of a node > > * A Service is an object that is bound to a particular runtime entity > > (raft group service is bound to a raft group, and we can have multiple > Raft > > groups; partition service is bound to a particular partition). We can > > re-create services based on changing runtime state and/or configuration. > > Does this make sense? > > > > Finally, I would use lang module name instead of core (the core is > > confusing because right now core contains all necessary classes required > to > > start a minimal Ignite instance; this sets up wrong expectations for > Ignite > > 3). Additionally, I think it would be good to exploit the old > > org.apache.ignite and org.apache.ignite.internal naming scheme: all > public > > classes must go to the non-internal package. The ignite-lang module will > > have both public and internal packages. This automatically implies that > all > > modules except ignite-api and ignite-lang must reside solely in > > org.apache.ignite.internal.* packages. This will be easy to check and > > maintain. > > > > Throughts? > > > > --AG > > > > пт, 26 мар. 2021 г. в 20:28, Alexander Lapin <lapin1...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > Seems that within Ignite-3 we have some mess in terms like manager, > cpu, > > > service, module, etc. Let's clarify this point. Also It'll be great to > > > discuss the rules of dividing code into modules. > > > I'll use the context of Ignite cluster & node lifecycle > > > < > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/ignite-14393/modules/runner/README.md > > > > > > > for terms definition and as an example source. > > > > > > *Terms clarification.* > > > > > > - Component - semantically consistent part of Ignite that in most > > cases > > > will have component-public but ignite-internal API and a lifecycle, > > > somehow > > > related to the lifecycle of a node or cluster. So, *structurally* > > > TableManager, SchemaManager, AffinityManager, etc are all > components. > > > For > > > example, TableManager will have methods like createTable(), > > > alterTable(), > > > dropTable(), etc and a lifecycle that will create listeners (aka > > > DistributedMetastorage watches) on schema and affinity updates in > > order > > > to > > > create/drop raft servers for particular partitions that should be > > > hosted on > > > local node). Components are lined up in a graph without cycles, for > > more > > > details please see mentioned above Ignite cluster & node lifecycle. > > > < > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/ignite-14393/modules/runner/README.md > > > > > > > - Manager is a driving point of a component with high level > lifecycle > > > logic and API methods. My intention here is to agree about naming: > > > should > > > we use the term Manager, Processor or anything else? > > > - Service is an entry point to some component/server or a group of > > > components/servers. See RaftGroupService.java > > > < > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/main/modules/raft-client/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/raft/client/service/RaftGroupService.java > > > > > > > as an example. > > > - Server, for example RaftServer, seems to be self-explanatory > itself. > > > > > > > > > *Dividing code into modules.* > > > It seems useful to introduce a restriction that a module should contain > > at > > > most one component. So that, combining component-specific modules and > > ones > > > of api, lang, etc we will end up with something like following: > > > > > > - affinity // TO be created. > > > - api [public] > > > - baseline // TO be created. > > > - bytecode > > > - cli > > > - cli-common > > > - configuration > > > - configuration-annotation-processor > > > - core // Module with classes like IgniteUuid. Should we raname it > to > > > lang/utils/commons? > > > - metastorage-client // To be created. > > > - metastorage-common // To be created. > > > - metastorage-server // TO be created. > > > - network > > > - raft // raft-server? > > > - raft-client > > > - rest > > > - runner > > > - schema > > > - table // Seems that there might be a conflict between the meaning > of > > > table module that we already have and table module with > > > create/dropTable() > > > - vault > > > > > > Also it's not quite clear to me how we should split lang and util > classes > > > some of which belong to the public api, and some to the private. > > > > > > Please share your thoughts about topics mentioned above. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Alexander > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov > -- Best regards, Alexei Scherbakov
