I like A or C I think it will be clearer for people to separate the two.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > For the new producer code we currently added the new module > clients > This builds the jar kafka-clients.jar. The core module should be renamed to > kafka-server and producer kafka-server.jar. > > It is the intention that the server will end up depending on the clients > but not vice versa (or we could make a separate module for that if we > like). > > Integration code that tests clients against the server will live with the > server. > > There is some shared code between the clients and server. This is the > kafka.common package. Currently this is in the clients module, which is a > little odd. We could alternatively break it into its own module, which > might be nice. However I'm not sure it really warrants its own jar since > there isn't much point to that code on its own and having the clients need > two jars is kind of annoying. But maybe this doesn't matter because > everyone just uses Maven? > > So the options are: > > A) Leave it the way it is: kafka-clients.jar and kafka-server.jar. > B) Separate out the common code and have kafka-common.jar, > kafka-clients.jar and kafka-server.jar (clients depends on common, and > server depends on clients and common). > C) Make a jar for each client. Currently this would be just producer and > consumer, but in the future we could add a more well-defined an Admin > client for some of the administrative functions. If there ended up being > code that is client-specific but shared by multiple clients this could be > problematic. > > Alternately I don't know if the mapping from sub-modules to jars needs to > be one-to-one so we could seperate the clients and common code to enforce > compile dependencies and then glump it all into one client jar. That might > anger the build system, though. > > I think I vote for (A) but don't really care much. > > -Jay >
