Alexei, I had the same opinion regarding the internal package, but we still need to somehow distinguish between public and internal classes in the ignite-util module. If we introduce the internal package in the util, we should follow the same structure in other modules.
Thoughts? вт, 30 мар. 2021 г. в 18:37, Alexei Scherbakov <alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com >: > +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 >
