You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kudu.apache.org by Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> on 2016/06/01 18:29:09 UTC
Re: Change packaging from org.kududb to org.apache.kudu?
Yeah the typical thing to use is the subdomain (in this case
org.apache.kudu).
A few thoughts about package naming:
1. While using the apache subdomain for Java package names is encouraged,
and often the most obvious thing to do (i.e. when you're starting from
scratch), it's not required. If we don't do it then a few people will ask
why, and complain about it, and make a big deal out of it accusing the
project of some nefarious intent, but I think ultimately we wouldn't have
to change the package names since it's not a licensing issue.
2. If it's not too much effort to do it in a backwards-compatible way, it's
probably worth doing for (a) branding and (b) to avoid the distraction of
the above argument.
3. IMHO it would be preferable to get sign-off on the Apache Kudu name (
see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93 ) before we
spend effort on something that we might have to change again later (imagine
having to maintain 2 sets of facade classes).
Mike
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Dan Burkert <da...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I'm an apache noob as well, but I assume it should be "org.apache.kudu",
> since our official apache project name is 'kudu'. I think we settled on
> kududb.io since we couldn't get kudu.io way back when.
>
> - Dan
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm +1 to changing it provided Kudu isn't kicked out of Apache. :) As an
> > Apache newbie, is there any danger of that happening? That is, of the
> > project being declared not fit for TLP? It'd be a shame if we changed
> > package names only to have that happen.
> >
> > Also, shouldn't it be "org.apache.kududb", not "org.apache.kudu"?
> >
> > Separately, how can this be done without breaking compatibility? I
> thought
> > package name changes were, by definition, breaking changes.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Dan Burkert <da...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm +1 to changing the package prior to 1.0. Sooner the better, in my
> > > opinion. I'm -0 to trying to do it in a backwards compatible way, I
> > don't
> > > think the upside is worth any effort.
> > >
> > > - Dan
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> > jdcryans@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey devs,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to start a discussion around package names.
> > > >
> > > > Right now our packages are prefixed with "org.kududb", a domain that
> > > AFAIK
> > > > is owned by Cloudera with a plan to transfer it to the ASF. In a
> > perfect
> > > > world they should be named "org.apache.kudu" but it's not a
> > requirement.
> > > > Many projects like Apache Netty and Apache OpenOffice use their own
> > > package
> > > > prefixes.
> > > >
> > > > The main impact of doing this is mostly on the Java side, and it can
> be
> > > > done without breaking existing but it would be quite a big effort.
> > OTOH,
> > > if
> > > > the community generally agrees that it should be done, then now's a
> > good
> > > > time since we're releasing 1.0 in a little over 2 months.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > J-D
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Change packaging from org.kududb to org.apache.kudu?
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
+1 great work team
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS)
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 6/1/16, 11:29 AM, "Mike Percy" <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>Yeah the typical thing to use is the subdomain (in this case
>org.apache.kudu).
>
>A few thoughts about package naming:
>
>1. While using the apache subdomain for Java package names is encouraged,
>and often the most obvious thing to do (i.e. when you're starting from
>scratch), it's not required. If we don't do it then a few people will ask
>why, and complain about it, and make a big deal out of it accusing the
>project of some nefarious intent, but I think ultimately we wouldn't have
>to change the package names since it's not a licensing issue.
>2. If it's not too much effort to do it in a backwards-compatible way, it's
>probably worth doing for (a) branding and (b) to avoid the distraction of
>the above argument.
>3. IMHO it would be preferable to get sign-off on the Apache Kudu name (
>see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93 ) before we
>spend effort on something that we might have to change again later (imagine
>having to maintain 2 sets of facade classes).
>
>Mike
>
>On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Dan Burkert <da...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm an apache noob as well, but I assume it should be "org.apache.kudu",
>> since our official apache project name is 'kudu'. I think we settled on
>> kududb.io since we couldn't get kudu.io way back when.
>>
>> - Dan
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm +1 to changing it provided Kudu isn't kicked out of Apache. :) As an
>> > Apache newbie, is there any danger of that happening? That is, of the
>> > project being declared not fit for TLP? It'd be a shame if we changed
>> > package names only to have that happen.
>> >
>> > Also, shouldn't it be "org.apache.kududb", not "org.apache.kudu"?
>> >
>> > Separately, how can this be done without breaking compatibility? I
>> thought
>> > package name changes were, by definition, breaking changes.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Dan Burkert <da...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm +1 to changing the package prior to 1.0. Sooner the better, in my
>> > > opinion. I'm -0 to trying to do it in a backwards compatible way, I
>> > don't
>> > > think the upside is worth any effort.
>> > >
>> > > - Dan
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
>> > jdcryans@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hey devs,
>> > > >
>> > > > I'd like to start a discussion around package names.
>> > > >
>> > > > Right now our packages are prefixed with "org.kududb", a domain that
>> > > AFAIK
>> > > > is owned by Cloudera with a plan to transfer it to the ASF. In a
>> > perfect
>> > > > world they should be named "org.apache.kudu" but it's not a
>> > requirement.
>> > > > Many projects like Apache Netty and Apache OpenOffice use their own
>> > > package
>> > > > prefixes.
>> > > >
>> > > > The main impact of doing this is mostly on the Java side, and it can
>> be
>> > > > done without breaking existing but it would be quite a big effort.
>> > OTOH,
>> > > if
>> > > > the community generally agrees that it should be done, then now's a
>> > good
>> > > > time since we're releasing 1.0 in a little over 2 months.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thoughts?
>> > > >
>> > > > J-D
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
Re: Change packaging from org.kududb to org.apache.kudu?
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
I just pushed Dan's part 1 and 2 patches, so anyone who depends on the Java
client or who has outstanding patches will need to make some changes.
I'll add a release note.
J-D
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Dan Burkert <da...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> To get the ball rolling on this I put up a series of patchsets (1
> <https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/3736/>, 2
> <https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/3737/>, 3
> <https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/3738/>). No attempt was made at
> maintaining backwards compatibility with applications. In-flight changes
> to the Java client should in theory rebase cleanly against these changes
> (except perhaps part 3, but it is optional).
>
> - Dan
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Todd you bring up a good point about the wire compatibility being
> > maintained.
> >
> > Since PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93 has now been approved, and we get to keep the
> > Apache Kudu name (yay!) then I'm +1 with just renaming the packages to
> > org.apache.kudu.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm also -0 on backwards compatibility shims. We are a young project
> > with a
> > > small install base, and the upgrade here is just find and replace.
> Given
> > > our good wire compatibility, people can do so at their own pace.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> jdcryans@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, in your opinion Mike, should we do the change if
> > PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93
> > > > is solved within a reasonable time frame before 1.0?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think we should do it in a backwards compatible way, deprecate the
> old
> > > names, and delete them after a couple of releases. If it's just a few
> > hours
> > > of someone's time then I think it's a no brainer to just do a facade.
> > >
> > > That said, if we're talking a week or weeks of work to do it right then
> > I'm
> > > +0 to renaming and breaking backcompat before 1.0 and -0 for leaving
> them
> > > not renamed for the forseeable future. I haven't tried to scope the
> > effort.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> >
>
Re: Change packaging from org.kududb to org.apache.kudu?
Posted by Dan Burkert <da...@cloudera.com>.
To get the ball rolling on this I put up a series of patchsets (1
<https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/3736/>, 2
<https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/3737/>, 3
<https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/3738/>). No attempt was made at
maintaining backwards compatibility with applications. In-flight changes
to the Java client should in theory rebase cleanly against these changes
(except perhaps part 3, but it is optional).
- Dan
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Todd you bring up a good point about the wire compatibility being
> maintained.
>
> Since PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93 has now been approved, and we get to keep the
> Apache Kudu name (yay!) then I'm +1 with just renaming the packages to
> org.apache.kudu.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm also -0 on backwards compatibility shims. We are a young project
> with a
> > small install base, and the upgrade here is just find and replace. Given
> > our good wire compatibility, people can do so at their own pace.
> >
> > Todd
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So, in your opinion Mike, should we do the change if
> PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93
> > > is solved within a reasonable time frame before 1.0?
> > >
> >
> > I think we should do it in a backwards compatible way, deprecate the old
> > names, and delete them after a couple of releases. If it's just a few
> hours
> > of someone's time then I think it's a no brainer to just do a facade.
> >
> > That said, if we're talking a week or weeks of work to do it right then
> I'm
> > +0 to renaming and breaking backcompat before 1.0 and -0 for leaving them
> > not renamed for the forseeable future. I haven't tried to scope the
> effort.
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
Re: Change packaging from org.kududb to org.apache.kudu?
Posted by Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org>.
Todd you bring up a good point about the wire compatibility being
maintained.
Since PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93 has now been approved, and we get to keep the
Apache Kudu name (yay!) then I'm +1 with just renaming the packages to
org.apache.kudu.
Mike
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I'm also -0 on backwards compatibility shims. We are a young project with a
> small install base, and the upgrade here is just find and replace. Given
> our good wire compatibility, people can do so at their own pace.
>
> Todd
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > So, in your opinion Mike, should we do the change if PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93
> > is solved within a reasonable time frame before 1.0?
> >
>
> I think we should do it in a backwards compatible way, deprecate the old
> names, and delete them after a couple of releases. If it's just a few hours
> of someone's time then I think it's a no brainer to just do a facade.
>
> That said, if we're talking a week or weeks of work to do it right then I'm
> +0 to renaming and breaking backcompat before 1.0 and -0 for leaving them
> not renamed for the forseeable future. I haven't tried to scope the effort.
>
> Mike
>
Re: Change packaging from org.kududb to org.apache.kudu?
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
I'm also -0 on backwards compatibility shims. We are a young project with a
small install base, and the upgrade here is just find and replace. Given
our good wire compatibility, people can do so at their own pace.
Todd
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> So, in your opinion Mike, should we do the change if PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93
> is solved within a reasonable time frame before 1.0?
>
I think we should do it in a backwards compatible way, deprecate the old
names, and delete them after a couple of releases. If it's just a few hours
of someone's time then I think it's a no brainer to just do a facade.
That said, if we're talking a week or weeks of work to do it right then I'm
+0 to renaming and breaking backcompat before 1.0 and -0 for leaving them
not renamed for the forseeable future. I haven't tried to scope the effort.
Mike
Re: Change packaging from org.kududb to org.apache.kudu?
Posted by Dan Burkert <da...@cloudera.com>.
Another option is to go ahead and break backwards compatibility, and if
anyone complains we can backport bug fixes for them to the 0.9.x release
branch. My gut is that this will be way less work.
- Dan
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > So, in your opinion Mike, should we do the change if PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93
> > is solved within a reasonable time frame before 1.0?
> >
>
> I think we should do it in a backwards compatible way, deprecate the old
> names, and delete them after a couple of releases. If it's just a few hours
> of someone's time then I think it's a no brainer to just do a facade.
>
> That said, if we're talking a week or weeks of work to do it right then I'm
> +0 to renaming and breaking backcompat before 1.0 and -0 for leaving them
> not renamed for the forseeable future. I haven't tried to scope the effort.
>
> Mike
>
Re: Change packaging from org.kududb to org.apache.kudu?
Posted by Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> So, in your opinion Mike, should we do the change if PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93
> is solved within a reasonable time frame before 1.0?
>
I think we should do it in a backwards compatible way, deprecate the old
names, and delete them after a couple of releases. If it's just a few hours
of someone's time then I think it's a no brainer to just do a facade.
That said, if we're talking a week or weeks of work to do it right then I'm
+0 to renaming and breaking backcompat before 1.0 and -0 for leaving them
not renamed for the forseeable future. I haven't tried to scope the effort.
Mike
Re: Change packaging from org.kududb to org.apache.kudu?
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yeah the typical thing to use is the subdomain (in this case
> org.apache.kudu).
>
> A few thoughts about package naming:
>
> 1. While using the apache subdomain for Java package names is encouraged,
> and often the most obvious thing to do (i.e. when you're starting from
> scratch), it's not required. If we don't do it then a few people will ask
> why, and complain about it, and make a big deal out of it accusing the
> project of some nefarious intent, but I think ultimately we wouldn't have
> to change the package names since it's not a licensing issue.
> 2. If it's not too much effort to do it in a backwards-compatible way, it's
> probably worth doing for (a) branding and (b) to avoid the distraction of
> the above argument.
> 3. IMHO it would be preferable to get sign-off on the Apache Kudu name (
> see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93 ) before we
> spend effort on something that we might have to change again later (imagine
> having to maintain 2 sets of facade classes).
>
Oh yeah that one's a big deal, thanks for bringing this up!
So, in your opinion Mike, should we do the change if PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93
is solved within a reasonable time frame before 1.0?
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Dan Burkert <da...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm an apache noob as well, but I assume it should be "org.apache.kudu",
> > since our official apache project name is 'kudu'. I think we settled on
> > kududb.io since we couldn't get kudu.io way back when.
> >
> > - Dan
> >
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Adar Dembo <ad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm +1 to changing it provided Kudu isn't kicked out of Apache. :) As
> an
> > > Apache newbie, is there any danger of that happening? That is, of the
> > > project being declared not fit for TLP? It'd be a shame if we changed
> > > package names only to have that happen.
> > >
> > > Also, shouldn't it be "org.apache.kududb", not "org.apache.kudu"?
> > >
> > > Separately, how can this be done without breaking compatibility? I
> > thought
> > > package name changes were, by definition, breaking changes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Dan Burkert <da...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm +1 to changing the package prior to 1.0. Sooner the better, in
> my
> > > > opinion. I'm -0 to trying to do it in a backwards compatible way, I
> > > don't
> > > > think the upside is worth any effort.
> > > >
> > > > - Dan
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> > > jdcryans@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey devs,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to start a discussion around package names.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now our packages are prefixed with "org.kududb", a domain
> that
> > > > AFAIK
> > > > > is owned by Cloudera with a plan to transfer it to the ASF. In a
> > > perfect
> > > > > world they should be named "org.apache.kudu" but it's not a
> > > requirement.
> > > > > Many projects like Apache Netty and Apache OpenOffice use their own
> > > > package
> > > > > prefixes.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main impact of doing this is mostly on the Java side, and it
> can
> > be
> > > > > done without breaking existing but it would be quite a big effort.
> > > OTOH,
> > > > if
> > > > > the community generally agrees that it should be done, then now's a
> > > good
> > > > > time since we're releasing 1.0 in a little over 2 months.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > J-D
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>