This seems generally good to me. I welcome a more modern structure. I also prefer the first layout you mentioned, but it may be necessary to do the second layout and then move to the first. That might make others more comfortable. I personally see a lot of value in what you describe, but I know others may still need more convincing and specific details.
Also, you didn't mention some things specifically, but I assume we are doing away with things like the P_ and I_ in the header files? We should also make it so that the docs don't get needlessly built. I'm sure there are a bunch of other things, but those are the ones that come to mind. Another thing I think we need to be careful with is people who have long lived feature branches. They really need to be rebasing against master a lot or perhaps just pushing their changes upstream quicker. Be prepared for a lot of bike shedding. This is likely to be a long slow process as we address the merits of each change and how it fits into the bigger picture and what are the pros and cons of each. On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:43 PM Jason Kenny <jke...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > Second try as the first attempt seems to be a blob of unformated text. > I want to see about moving forward on the source clean up I believe we > all agreed to the last ATS summate. What I would like to get general > agreement on what I plan to do to the source layout so it is clear why and > where everything will go before I start making lots of small pull requests > pulling moving source and cleaning up the build. > First what are the goals? > Cleaning up the source to will proved: > 1) Better clarity on where to put new code. > a. Making it easier to refactor code > b. Making it easier for others to change code > 2) simplify the build code > a. making it easier to use other build system if desired > b. making it easier for others to add or remove code > 3) untangle the dependency mess of everything needing > everything else > 4) untangle what modules are being built > 5) Make it easier for everyone to understand the Architecture > and design > 6) Make it easier to improve/cleanup the testing systems > 7) Allow a better setup to hopefully avoid any major source > layout refactors for a long time > > I want to clarify that this was generally agreed on by everyone at the ATS > summate. We want to avoid this unless needed. I believe people feel overall > this would be a good thing, but I want to make sure that I define the > envisioned layout we will move to so we all understand the where we are > going before doing this. Ideally we will want to do the major part of this > work as fast as we can to minimize the pain as much as possible. > > Before I go into the layout, I want to talk about process. I plan to break > this up into phases. > Phase 1 – move source to new location and any header cleanup that might be > needed. Once this phase is done we will still have dependency issues to > deal with, however it should be clearer on what is wrong, and some of the > dependency issues should just go away > Phase 2 – refactor source to deal with dependency issues, to clean up mega > source files and start some cleanup of the tests. This will make it easier > to find objects and make changes in a way to that should not make compiling > more complex. It should also make it easier to understand and learn the > code. > > The hope I have is that will help minimize the size of any given diff. > Will have more diff overall, but these will all be small and to the point. > > Now let talk about layout (finally :-) ) > > The current layout has something like this at the top layer > /build > /ci > /cmd > /contrib > /doc > /example > /iocore > /lib > /mgmt > /plugins > /proxy > /rc > /tools > > Source needed to build Traffics Server exits in /proxy, /mgmt, /lib, /cmd > and /iocore. These directories also have tests in them as well. In some > case the tests and the source is mixed. I would like to change the top > level to look like this instead: > /build > /ci > /contrib > /doc > /plugins > /rc > /src > /tests > /tools > > We move the code in /examples, /proxy, /mgmt, /lib, /cmd and /iocore. The > addition of a src and test directory will help clarify what is the source > to than traffic server application vs that of being a test or something > else, such as an example or an optional plug-in. The code for /examples > moves under /plugins, everything else under /src > In the /src directory we would have a layout like this: > src/ > api/ > c/ > cpp/ > config/ > cmd/ > … > core/ > … > Infra/ > … > > Details: > api – contains all the API code for a given language. Any new language API > would be added here under a directory correctly names for the language. > config- Contains the default config file to run traffic server. > cmd – Contains the code for each program in a name directory. > core – Contains the main modules to build different programs under the > cmd/ directory. Modules under here depend on modules in Infra, or other > modules in Core itself. Code here should be more Traffic server specific > modules. > infra – Contains the support modules. Modules in here are leaf modules, > may be reusable. If the module is not a leaf module it can only depend on > code in Infra and should be generally reusable. > > Dependencies: > Modules should not depend on other modules that depend on them. The only > expectations would be header only dependencies that don’t require link time > circular dependencies. > Modules in CMD can depend on modules in API, Core, Infra > Modules in API can depend on modules in Core, Infra > Modules in Core can depend on modules in Core, Infra > Modules in Infra can depend on modules in Infra > > Header Patterns: > The general include pattern will be changed to #include <module/header.h> > for modules depending in on other headers. Files depending on headers in > the same module will be in the form of #include “header.h” > > An alternative to this layout would be > Src/ > api/ > c/ > cpp/ > config/ > mgmt/ > proxy/ > … > iocore/ > … > lib/ > … > > The main difference is here is that it look like it did before. However > much of the code in proxy or mgmt would be moved to lib as it is a leaf > component, or the code would be moved in to a directory based on module it > would be used to generate, vs having lots of modules in a given directory. > Because of this I felt it might be easier to use the first layout as it > contains a simpler set of logic on where code goes. > Given that we agree with the layout. The process will be to move > components that are on the leaf first and slowly move up the chain. Each > commit will be on component at a time, with changes to the source files > #include and any make file changes to allow the code to build as expected. > After a component is moved that changes that break up source can happen, > where the commit will include the makefile changes and the split source any > header file changes need to support the split. > > I think that is it. I will deal with “tests” after main source changes. > > Any question or concerns? > > Jason >
