nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Blue <b...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Write-Ahead-Log package name change?
Date Wed, 05 Aug 2015 20:15:19 GMT
The change sounds pretty safe to me and I wouldn't expect the WAL to be 
public. I agree that the public API needs to be well defined, though, 
because that's really how this should be decided.

rb

On 08/05/2015 01:01 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
> I am too.  And I think we should document precisely what is public and
> what is private across the entire codebase.
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Dan Bress <dbress@onyxconsults.com> wrote:
>> I'm fine with the package name being changed in 0.3.0
>>
>> Dan Bress
>> Software Engineer
>> ONYX Consulting Services
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Mark Payne <markap14@hotmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 3:01 PM
>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Write-Ahead-Log package name change?
>>
>> Ryan,
>>
>> The WAL is certainly not defined in the nifi-api. But it does live in the nifi-commons
module. Not entirely sure if i would consider it "public" or not.
>>
>> My suggestion is to change the package name for the 0.3.0 release, which is a minor
version.
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Mark
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:38:02 -0700
>>> From: blue@cloudera.com
>>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Write-Ahead-Log package name change?
>>>
>>> Is the WAL a public API? I thought that it was internal, in which case a
>>> rename should be fine. Otherwise we would have to bump the major version
>>> number (or minor depending on discussion) to account for the change.
>>>
>>> rb
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2015 11:53 AM, Mark Payne wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I recently realized that the nifi-write-ahead-log module (under nifi-commons)
is using a package name of "org.wali" instead of "org.apache.nifi.wal"
>>>>
>>>> This has been the package name since the software was open sourced, unfortunately.
I would like to change the package name for the 0.3.0 version of NiFi, if there are no objections.
>>>>
>>>> The pre-0.3.0 versions would, of course, still be available if anyone has
a dependency on the classes, but I would like to get this fixed so that it is correct going
forward.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any reason that we cannot change this for the 0.3.0 release?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Mark
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ryan Blue
>>> Software Engineer
>>> Cloudera, Inc.


-- 
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Cloudera, Inc.

Mime
View raw message