Hi Dmitri, Thanks for your reply. My proposal doesn’t affect how polaris-runtime-defaults is “pulled in” by downstream builds.
We can, however, explore ways to make the downstream integration experience better, but imo only *after* the merge. Thanks, Alex Le jeu. 31 juil. 2025 à 19:56, Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> a écrit : > Hi Alex, > > Unifying polaris-service-common and polaris-runtime-service sounds good to > me. > > Re: config, I suppose it should not be an issue to have Quarkus (or > Smallrye) dependencies in any "service" modules. > > Side note: I'd like to exclude polaris-runtime-defaults from the transitive > dependency chain and only depend on it directly from leaf runtime artifacts > (admin and server). The reason for this is to simplify downstream builds > that reuse common services (having multiple application.properties in a > Quarkus build env. is a nightmare :) ). I hope this will not interfere with > your proposal. I'm mentioning it here only because it affects > the polaris-runtime-service module (IIRC). > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:36 PM Alexandre Dutra <adu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I mentioned smallrye-config, not Quarkus, so you _can_ annotate those. > > > > Fair point: you are absolutely right. We *could* do things the other > > way around, and move the configuration classes from the > > polaris-runtime-service module to the polaris-service-common module. > > > > BUT: my main point for proposing this change still holds: *the two > > modules do not have a clearly defined purpose*. Both have code for > > e.g. authentication, events, persistence, storage, task handling, etc. > > etc. > > > > This doesn't look to me as a desirable state. I think that if classes > > that perform the same actions could live next to each other, that > > would be beneficial to the developer experience. > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 6:46 PM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > > > > > > That's not possible because there are no Quarkus dependencies in that > > module, so you can't annotate with @WithDefault, for example. > > > > > > I mentioned smallrye-config, not Quarkus, so you _can_ annotate those. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 6:34 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1. Thanks Alex for driving this. Other than the benefits discussed > > like > > > > removing the duplicated config classes like > > > > `QuarkusStorageCredentialCacheConfig`, or removing `.quarkus.` in the > > > > package name, we can finally put classes like S3AccessConfig > > > > and StsClientsPool into the right package. > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 8:45 AM Eric Maynard < > eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The project already *has* adopted Quarkus for good, so I think > > making the > > > > > module structure reflect that is fine. In addition to the > > configuration > > > > > issue, which is significant, I think cutting down on the number of > > modules > > > > > we publish is a noble goal. > > > > > > > > > > —EM > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 00:43 Alexandre Dutra <adu...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can get away by having the smallrye-config > > annotations on > > > > > the > > > > > > "parent" interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not possible because there are no Quarkus dependencies in > > that > > > > > > module, so you can't annotate with @WithDefault, for example. > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed merging those two modules would mean that we're adopting > > > > > > Quarkus for good, but I think that at this point, nobody would > > object. > > > > > > > > > > > > In this merge, we could also remove the ".quarkus." bits from > > package > > > > > > names and remove the "Quarkus" prefix of many classes. I think > this > > > > > > would result in a much more readable code, but that's just my > > opinion > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > My long-term vision is that, after the merge, we could also > > consider > > > > > > splitting the resulting "uber-module" into smaller, > > concern-specific > > > > > > modules like "polaris-service-auth", "polaris-service-telemetry", > > > > > > "polaris-service-events", etc. This approach would make it much > > > > > > simpler for integrators to implement their own customizations > (and > > > > > > brings no downsides for regular users). > > > > > > > > > > > > But this needs to be done in two steps: first, merge the current > > two > > > > > > modules; then, split the result. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:22 PM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the issue here just the configuration types or is there > more? > > > > > > > For the config types, I think we can get away by having the > > > > > > > smallrye-config annotations on the "parent" interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My concern is that polaris-runtime-service is rather the > Quarkus > > > > > > specifics. > > > > > > > CDI is great, just Quarkus isn't the only enterprise-CDI > runtime. > > > > > > > Spoiler: I do *not* think that Polaris should move away from > > Quarkus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But for sole testing purposes Quarkus is quite expensive, too > > > > > > > expensive IMO to make it a necessity for all tests. > > > > > > > Sure, not all tests have to be `@QuarkusTest`s, but I could > > imagine > > > > > > > that there will be tests that do not need Quarkus are annotated > > as > > > > > > > such. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 12:19 PM Alexandre Dutra < > > adu...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The polaris-service-common module is a reminiscence of the > > times > > > > > where > > > > > > > > we were still supporting two runtimes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it has now become obsolete, and could be merged into > > > > > > > > polaris-runtime-service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One annoyance that polaris-service-common brings is with > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > classes that have to exist in both modules (e.g. > > > > > > > > AuthenticationConfiguration vs > > QuarkusAuthenticationConfiguration). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would we be OK with this merge? If so I'm happy to provide > the > > PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
