separating out golang juju client from

[Andrew Wilkins]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Dimiter Naydenov <
dimiter.naydenov at canonical.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think having a separate juju/api repo containing the api client as a
> reusable library will definitely improve collaboration/integration
> with external projects. It will require some refactoring to make it
> easier to reuse, but that's also a good thing. We should split the
> agent api and client api so the latter can move in a separate repo,
> but leave the former in juju-core.
>
> The apiserver should remain in juju/juju as it's closely tied with the
> state package and it does not make sense to have it separately (as
> long as state is also in juju-core).
>
> However, this should not be done at the expense of more complicated
> workflow: juju/api should be treated the same way as juju/juju - CI
> gated merges, bot running integration / upgrade tests, RB integration.
>

+1 to OP, +1 to this


> Happy holidays ;)
> Dimiter
>
> On 19.12.2014 15:43, David Cheney wrote:
> > There is no reason for the 130 (at last count) packages that
> > constitute juju-core (not counting the dozens of other packages we
> > bring in as dependencies) to live in the same repository.
> >
> > If licensing is the lever that we use to break up this monolithic
> > repository, consider me +1
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kapil Thangavelu
> > <kapil.thangavelu at canonical.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Nate Finch
> >> <nate.finch at canonical.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> While I am generally for using more permissive licenses, I'm
> >>> not sure how useful that might be... most significant changes
> >>> require modifications to both the client and the server, or at
> >>> least to libraries used by both.
> >>
> >>
> >> That sort of misses the point of building apps that use juju
> >> apis. Yes the two packages need to be updated together for new
> >> changes same as today.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There's not that much code under cmd/juju compared to the whole
> >>> rest of the repo.
> >>
> >>
> >> Again its not about that code, its about building other
> >> applications and facilitating integrations.
> >>
> >>
> >> cheers, Kapil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Kapil Thangavelu
> >>> <kapil.thangavelu at canonical.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> one of the issues with having it in tree, means client usage
> >>>> falls under the AGPL. We want to have the client used widely
> >>>> under a more permissive license. I've already had
> >>>> contributions to other projects n'acked due to license on our
> >>>> libraries. I'd like to see it moved to a separate repo so
> >>>> that's possible. Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers, Kapil
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com Modify
> >>>> settings or unsubscribe at:
> >>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >>>>
> >>
> >> -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com Modify
> >> settings or unsubscribe at:
> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >>
> >
>
>
> - --
> Dimiter Naydenov <dimiter.naydenov at canonical.com>
> juju-core team
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUlC8pAAoJENzxV2TbLzHweucH/39/0D1WQt9pNT2yFrFb+Bt8
> JNO0shKqC1Spyblqn7WKI32H7unWVcI4qF2PMYdm3wYA84Xx+ySbislIRv5fJbPo
> 9ex90IfKJxeEvE6Oq8guavQz6FR7Ks9BzZDnuQUt+gVeZP2QyPwu3v4963ZGIch2
> vVOPwR+B9hr+eah00o8HSX2qx7ycdAxuB+yEL0Yg5gBpEcHSACcChBKiF/WAk4wc
> rhEAbHDH5DdjbBmE6pJtaGavd5bs/FEsh5OgdFh5YEOSth5B9aRg9DhyzbouYr8Y
> RhVu7LiewnQxpq0kyiAjl4Mjzk4m6pT7/uzzoUqPgX7Q0A6OS/bj9fXghDs7Gpo=
> =PWBM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> 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/20150105/aa95355e/attachment.html>