You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@helix.apache.org by Sandeep Nayak <os...@gmail.com> on 2014/03/04 19:51:40 UTC
API rework: Questions on model classes moving to api from core
Hey guys,
I have been working on the list of TODO I sent before (copied here for
convenience)
(a) the HelixProperty realignment as outlined in (1) above
(b) reworking some objects from config into model (see email exchange
for API rework summary 03-01-2014 thread)
(c) move more models into API, cleanup as necessary
(d) start on command objects
I have been chipping away at (a) and (b) but have a few questions to ask
(1) Should we rename PropertyType to HelixRecordType?
(2) ZNRecord like we discussed is now HelixValue
(3) ZNRecordDelta for now is HelixValueDelta but will eventually move out of API
(4) Should we rename ConfigScope to HelixConfigScope
(5) HelixProperty is renamed to HelixRecord which has HelixKey and HelixValue
(6) Should PropertyPathConfig be renamed to HelixRecordPathConfig
Let me know, I have been moving classes from core/model into api/model
and dropping off the interface classes and fixing the compile issues.
The model package has references to a lot of classes in core so I am
moving constants into the api and adding reference from core to api.
I will keep you guys posted when I get through (a) and (b) but would
certainly appreciate input on the above questions.
Thanks,
Sandeep
Re: API rework: Questions on model classes moving to api from core
Posted by Sandeep Nayak <os...@gmail.com>.
Ok summarizing responses from kanak and kishore
(1) Should we rename PropertyType to HelixRecordType?
[KG] I don't like either:-). Does not really answer your question, but
here is the analogy - Each Helix propertyType maps to a table in a
database. HelixRecord is a row in the table, where HelixKey, HelixValue,
Version are the columns in the table.
[kanak] Shouldn't this be internal?
[sandeep] If its internal I can move it out of API, not sure if a user
ever wants to read
the value held in a record to identify the type. If we expect to expose this
then we need a name. If the table contains records then maybe a better
name is HelixRecordContainer?
(3) ZNRecordDelta for now is HelixValueDelta but will eventually move out of API
[kanak] We need to think about this a little. The easiest way to
implement commands is to maintain a delta internally. Obviously it's
not an API because it's an implementation detail, but what is the most
common pattern for something like this?
[sandeep] I will put some thought into how we can keep this internal,
I have some ideas but want to think them through before I throw
something out there for consideration.
(4) Should we rename ConfigScope to HelixConfigScope
[KG] ConfigScope should not exist, we should have only Scope and should
be used across all properties.
[kanak] There's already something called HelixConfigScope.
Realistically I think that we should use Scope for API and keep
ConfigScope/HelixConfigScope internal.
[sandeep] If ConfigScope should not exist then I'd rather get rid of
it than keep it internal. I believe what KG is saying (and correct me
if I am wrong) is each config can then carry Scope on it.
6) Should PropertyPathConfig be renamed to HelixRecordPathConfig
[KG]This should definitely be in spi and not exposed to user.
[kanak]Again, my intuition is that this should remain internal. Will
this cause problems?
[sandeep] I will keep it internal but need to figure how deeply
referenced/embedded this is, I don't have the code right now in front
of me so will figure a way to keep this internal.
That would mean we need to break the dependency on this class from
classes in API. I will take a look when I get back to the code.
Thanks for your responses guys
Sandeep
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Kanak Biscuitwala <ka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the update and your help. Responses inline.
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:51:40 -0800
>> Subject: API rework: Questions on model classes moving to api from core
>> From: osgigeek@gmail.com
>> To: dev@helix.apache.org
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I have been working on the list of TODO I sent before (copied here for
>> convenience)
>>
>> (a) the HelixProperty realignment as outlined in (1) above
>> (b) reworking some objects from config into model (see email exchange
>> for API rework summary 03-01-2014 thread)
>> (c) move more models into API, cleanup as necessary
>> (d) start on command objects
>>
>> I have been chipping away at (a) and (b) but have a few questions to ask
>>
>> (1) Should we rename PropertyType to HelixRecordType?
>>
>
> Shouldn't this be internal?
>
>> (2) ZNRecord like we discussed is now HelixValue
>>
>> (3) ZNRecordDelta for now is HelixValueDelta but will eventually move out of API
>
> We need to think about this a little. The easiest way to implement commands is to maintain a delta internally. Obviously it's not an API because it's an implementation detail, but what is the most common pattern for something like this?
>
>>
>> (4) Should we rename ConfigScope to HelixConfigScope
>>
>
> There's already something called HelixConfigScope. Realistically I think that we should use Scope for API and keep ConfigScope/HelixConfigScope internal.
>
>> (5) HelixProperty is renamed to HelixRecord which has HelixKey and HelixValue
>>
>> (6) Should PropertyPathConfig be renamed to HelixRecordPathConfig
>
> Again, my intuition is that this should remain internal. Will this cause problems?
>
>>
>> Let me know, I have been moving classes from core/model into api/model
>> and dropping off the interface classes and fixing the compile issues.
>> The model package has references to a lot of classes in core so I am
>> moving constants into the api and adding reference from core to api.
>>
>> I will keep you guys posted when I get through (a) and (b) but would
>> certainly appreciate input on the above questions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sandeep
>
RE: API rework: Questions on model classes moving to api from core
Posted by Kanak Biscuitwala <ka...@hotmail.com>.
Thanks for the update and your help. Responses inline.
----------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:51:40 -0800
> Subject: API rework: Questions on model classes moving to api from core
> From: osgigeek@gmail.com
> To: dev@helix.apache.org
>
> Hey guys,
>
> I have been working on the list of TODO I sent before (copied here for
> convenience)
>
> (a) the HelixProperty realignment as outlined in (1) above
> (b) reworking some objects from config into model (see email exchange
> for API rework summary 03-01-2014 thread)
> (c) move more models into API, cleanup as necessary
> (d) start on command objects
>
> I have been chipping away at (a) and (b) but have a few questions to ask
>
> (1) Should we rename PropertyType to HelixRecordType?
>
Shouldn't this be internal?
> (2) ZNRecord like we discussed is now HelixValue
>
> (3) ZNRecordDelta for now is HelixValueDelta but will eventually move out of API
We need to think about this a little. The easiest way to implement commands is to maintain a delta internally. Obviously it's not an API because it's an implementation detail, but what is the most common pattern for something like this?
>
> (4) Should we rename ConfigScope to HelixConfigScope
>
There's already something called HelixConfigScope. Realistically I think that we should use Scope for API and keep ConfigScope/HelixConfigScope internal.
> (5) HelixProperty is renamed to HelixRecord which has HelixKey and HelixValue
>
> (6) Should PropertyPathConfig be renamed to HelixRecordPathConfig
Again, my intuition is that this should remain internal. Will this cause problems?
>
> Let me know, I have been moving classes from core/model into api/model
> and dropping off the interface classes and fixing the compile issues.
> The model package has references to a lot of classes in core so I am
> moving constants into the api and adding reference from core to api.
>
> I will keep you guys posted when I get through (a) and (b) but would
> certainly appreciate input on the above questions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sandeep
Re: API rework: Questions on model classes moving to api from core
Posted by kishore g <g....@gmail.com>.
response inline
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Sandeep Nayak <os...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I have been working on the list of TODO I sent before (copied here for
> convenience)
>
> (a) the HelixProperty realignment as outlined in (1) above
> (b) reworking some objects from config into model (see email exchange
> for API rework summary 03-01-2014 thread)
> (c) move more models into API, cleanup as necessary
> (d) start on command objects
>
> I have been chipping away at (a) and (b) but have a few questions to ask
>
> (1) Should we rename PropertyType to HelixRecordType?
> [KG] I don't like either:-). Does not really answer your question, but
> here is the analogy - Each Helix propertyType maps to a table in a
> database. HelixRecord is a row in the table, where HelixKey, HelixValue,
> Version are the columns in the table.
>
> (2) ZNRecord like we discussed is now HelixValue
>
> (3) ZNRecordDelta for now is HelixValueDelta but will eventually move out
> of API
>
> (4) Should we rename ConfigScope to HelixConfigScope
>
[KG] ConfigScope should not exist, we should have only Scope and should
be used across all properties.
>
> (5) HelixProperty is renamed to HelixRecord which has HelixKey and
> HelixValue
>
> (6) Should PropertyPathConfig be renamed to HelixRecordPathConfig
> [KG]This should definitely be in spi and not exposed to user.
>
> Let me know, I have been moving classes from core/model into api/model
> and dropping off the interface classes and fixing the compile issues.
> The model package has references to a lot of classes in core so I am
> moving constants into the api and adding reference from core to api.
> [KG] I think this is a good approach.
>
> I will keep you guys posted when I get through (a) and (b) but would
> certainly appreciate input on the above questions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sandeep
>