Splitting out state/api into its own repo

[William Reade]

I think one of the biggest problems is the naming: state/api is a hackish
and minimal api client implementation, while state/apiserver is where the
actual api is defined... except the params package, which for some reason
lives under state/api.

I think the most important actions are:

  * move state/api/params under state/apiserver
  * move state/apiserver to the top level, and make sure it's clearly
documented

Then I'd be keen to separate the internal api client code from the external
one; and at that point I'd be happy to move the external api client code
into its own repo. There's no disadvantage to having that code external,
because we can't afford to break our external api clients regardless; for
the internal ones we have more power and control, because we're the only
ones who have to deal with the impact of change.

(This would then involve separating the protocol-level code out somewhere
*else*, so that we could reuse it both internally and externally; and we'd
probably want both the server and client protocol parts together; but I
think that the point where we can reasonably move a package outside the
main repo is some way away regardless, so I'm not keen to focus on it at
the moment.)

Cheers
William



On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:01 AM, roger peppe <roger.peppe at canonical.com>
wrote:

> On 27 June 2014 07:51, David Cheney <david.cheney at canonical.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:21 PM, John Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com>
> wrote:
> >> Just my quick thought, I think moving it out from "state/api" into just
> a
> >> top level "api" would  be reasonable and a lot less clumsy than trying
> to
> >> pull it out into an entirely separate repository.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I don't think the api package is useful outside Juju (at this time)
> > and splitting it into another repo just doubles the amount of work.
>
> Do you mean that the API package isn't useful *from* outside Juju,
> or that the API package isn't useful *independently of* Juju?
>
> If the latter, I totally agree (the whole point is that it integrates with
> Juju)
> but if the former, I disagree. If we are to allow any external Go programs
> that use Juju (and I think we should - we should act as good citizens
> in the Go ecosystem) then the API package is the only way to do it.
> We shouldn't force people to write their own API interface just because
> we're not prepared to support our own.
>
> BTW, I think it would be a good idea to split off the agent parts of the
> API
> from the client parts - the former should not be considered public.
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20140627/048422b1/attachment.html>