You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stanbol.apache.org by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> on 2010/12/01 11:02:31 UTC
Stanbol modules and launchers (was: stanbol.FOO names for our modules?)
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Rupert Westenthaler <rw...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...For the modules I think we will need some more "top level names" like
> stanbol.commons
> stanbol.jersey...
> stanbol.utils...
I'd put those under commons, so in terms of svn layout I suggest:
trunk/
commons/
jersey
utils
...
fise/
launcher/
it/
...
kres/
launcher/
it/
...
rick/
launcher/
it/
...
stanbol
launcher/
it/
...
Where kres/launcher for example creates a runnable jar that runs just
kres, with minimal dependencies.
The stanbol/launcher would be a "kitchen sink" runnable jar that
includes everything.
The "it" modules contain integration tests that use the launchers,
either for the individual modules or for the kitchen sink stanbol
module.
-Bertrand
Re: Stanbol modules and launchers (was: stanbol.FOO names for our modules?)
Posted by Umesh Awasthi <um...@gmail.com>.
i am also of the same opinion that common is something which should be
independent of any structure.
one which we can use at any level
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Fabian Christ
> <ch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 2010/12/1 Umesh Awasthi <um...@gmail.com>:
> >> In Our current product we have placed all the common utilitiy classes
> which
> >> are applicable equally to all layers in the common module
> >> so in such cases when ever we need to use some such functionality which
> is
> >> not specific to any layer we tend to search that first in common.
> >
> > yes, and I think that this is a common (good) practice. However, what
> > you assume here is some layered architecture and at this stage of the
> > stanbol project the architecture is neither fixed nor really clear to
> > me. For the moment it might be a working solution to place things in
> > common but we should be careful to interpret this as an architectural
> > decision....
>
> I don't think putting modules in commons has much to do with
> architecture, IMO that's just a place for code that is shared between
> modules, or that might be usable outside of stanbol.
>
> -Bertrand
>
--
With Regards
Umesh Awasthi
Software Engineers never die… They just go Offline
http://travelling-rants.blogspot.com/
Re: Stanbol modules and launchers (was: stanbol.FOO names for our modules?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Fabian Christ
<ch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2010/12/1 Umesh Awasthi <um...@gmail.com>:
>> In Our current product we have placed all the common utilitiy classes which
>> are applicable equally to all layers in the common module
>> so in such cases when ever we need to use some such functionality which is
>> not specific to any layer we tend to search that first in common.
>
> yes, and I think that this is a common (good) practice. However, what
> you assume here is some layered architecture and at this stage of the
> stanbol project the architecture is neither fixed nor really clear to
> me. For the moment it might be a working solution to place things in
> common but we should be careful to interpret this as an architectural
> decision....
I don't think putting modules in commons has much to do with
architecture, IMO that's just a place for code that is shared between
modules, or that might be usable outside of stanbol.
-Bertrand
Re: Stanbol modules and launchers (was: stanbol.FOO names for our modules?)
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Umesh,
2010/12/1 Umesh Awasthi <um...@gmail.com>:
> In Our current product we have placed all the common utilitiy classes which
> are applicable equally to all layers in the common module
> so in such cases when ever we need to use some such functionality which is
> not specific to any layer we tend to search that first in common.
yes, and I think that this is a common (good) practice. However, what
you assume here is some layered architecture and at this stage of the
stanbol project the architecture is neither fixed nor really clear to
me. For the moment it might be a working solution to place things in
common but we should be careful to interpret this as an architectural
decision.
Regarding the stanbol architecture: IMO we have to learn more about
the possibilities provided by the modules in stanbol and how to use
them wisely before we know which architecture fits best. I would
suggest some learning by doing approach here.
--
Fabian
Re: Stanbol modules and launchers (was: stanbol.FOO names for our modules?)
Posted by Umesh Awasthi <um...@gmail.com>.
Fabian
In Our current product we have placed all the common utilitiy classes which
are applicable equally to all layers in the common module
so in such cases when ever we need to use some such functionality which is
not specific to any layer we tend to search that first in common.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Fabian Christ
<ch...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2010/12/1 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Rupert Westenthaler <rw...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> ...For the modules I think we will need some more "top level names" like
> >> stanbol.commons
> >> stanbol.jersey...
> >> stanbol.utils...
> >
> > I'd put those under commons, so in terms of svn layout I suggest:
> >
> > trunk/
> > commons/
> > jersey
> > utils
> > ...
>
> Then I would understand that 'commons' is an area where we put
> everything for which we don't know where it belongs to. For example
> the jersey module. Is this module used by fise, kres, rick or do fise,
> kres, and rick have their own jersey module to define their rest
> interface?
>
> My understanding of commons would be to place things there which are
> (potentially) used by every other module.
>
> I also would support the suggestion of Olivier in the other thread
> about module names to not use the FISE, RICK, KReS acronyms anymore in
> stanbol. Let's find better names which stand for functionality and are
> easier to understand for newcomers.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> --
> Fabian
>
--
With Regards
Umesh Awasthi
Software Engineers never die… They just go Offline
http://travelling-rants.blogspot.com/
Re: Stanbol modules and launchers (was: stanbol.FOO names for our modules?)
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
2010/12/1 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Rupert Westenthaler <rw...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...For the modules I think we will need some more "top level names" like
>> stanbol.commons
>> stanbol.jersey...
>> stanbol.utils...
>
> I'd put those under commons, so in terms of svn layout I suggest:
>
> trunk/
> commons/
> jersey
> utils
> ...
Then I would understand that 'commons' is an area where we put
everything for which we don't know where it belongs to. For example
the jersey module. Is this module used by fise, kres, rick or do fise,
kres, and rick have their own jersey module to define their rest
interface?
My understanding of commons would be to place things there which are
(potentially) used by every other module.
I also would support the suggestion of Olivier in the other thread
about module names to not use the FISE, RICK, KReS acronyms anymore in
stanbol. Let's find better names which stand for functionality and are
easier to understand for newcomers.
Just my 2 cents.
--
Fabian
Re: Stanbol modules and launchers (was: stanbol.FOO names for our modules?)
Posted by Enrico Daga <en...@gmail.com>.
On 1 December 2010 11:18, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Enrico Daga <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 for me
>>
>> the kres/it folder - for instance - should then include integration
>> tests with respect to all its launchers (kres/launchers and
>> stanbol/launchers), right?
>
> I'd include tests for kres there, and in stanbol/it tests for the
> global functionalities, avoiding duplication.
>
> stanbol/it tests might just verify that the overall setup is correct,
> assuming specific functionalities are tested in the respective
> modules.
agreed
Enrico
>
> -Bertrand
>
--
Enrico Daga
Technology Expert
--
Ufficio Sistemi Informativi (DCSPI-USI)
National Research Council (CNR)
P.le Aldo Moro 7 - Rome, Italy
Tel +39 4993 3321
--
Semantic Technology Laboratory (STLab)
Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, Rome - Italy
--
http://stlab.istc.cnr.it/stlab/User:EnricoDaga
http://www.enridaga.net
skype: enri-pan
Re: Stanbol modules and launchers (was: stanbol.FOO names for our modules?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Enrico Daga <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for me
>
> the kres/it folder - for instance - should then include integration
> tests with respect to all its launchers (kres/launchers and
> stanbol/launchers), right?
I'd include tests for kres there, and in stanbol/it tests for the
global functionalities, avoiding duplication.
stanbol/it tests might just verify that the overall setup is correct,
assuming specific functionalities are tested in the respective
modules.
-Bertrand
Re: Stanbol modules and launchers (was: stanbol.FOO names for our modules?)
Posted by Enrico Daga <en...@gmail.com>.
+1 for me
the kres/it folder - for instance - should then include integration
tests with respect to all its launchers (kres/launchers and
stanbol/launchers), right?
Enrico
On 1 December 2010 11:02, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Rupert Westenthaler <rw...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...For the modules I think we will need some more "top level names" like
>> stanbol.commons
>> stanbol.jersey...
>> stanbol.utils...
>
> I'd put those under commons, so in terms of svn layout I suggest:
>
> trunk/
> commons/
> jersey
> utils
> ...
> fise/
> launcher/
> it/
> ...
> kres/
> launcher/
> it/
> ...
> rick/
> launcher/
> it/
> ...
> stanbol
> launcher/
> it/
> ...
>
> Where kres/launcher for example creates a runnable jar that runs just
> kres, with minimal dependencies.
>
> The stanbol/launcher would be a "kitchen sink" runnable jar that
> includes everything.
>
> The "it" modules contain integration tests that use the launchers,
> either for the individual modules or for the kitchen sink stanbol
> module.
>
> -Bertrand
>
--
Enrico Daga
Technology Expert
--
Ufficio Sistemi Informativi (DCSPI-USI)
National Research Council (CNR)
P.le Aldo Moro 7 - Rome, Italy
Tel +39 4993 3321
--
Semantic Technology Laboratory (STLab)
Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, Rome - Italy
--
http://stlab.istc.cnr.it/stlab/User:EnricoDaga
http://www.enridaga.net
skype: enri-pan