I would vote for A just for simplicity of dependencies.
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Neha Narkhede <neha.narkh...@gmail.com>wrote: > I like A. It will be simpler to maintain and evolve when we add the admin > APIs. > > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Steve Morin <st...@stevemorin.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
