Re: [aerogear-dev] [feedhenry-dev] Separate APB org or just separate repo

I'm really not sure I like the idea of a separate org for the APBs - I just don't see the value. The APBs are an integral part of what we are building - why are we looking to hide them away in a separate org. I'm also not sure of repo per component. My fear is that we will end up with about 10 repos per service. As we grow the number of services, this will, IMO, get unmanageable. I think a good middle ground would be 3 x repos per service - Service Impl - The actual service code (UPS, Sync, Keycloak, 3Scale) - not all of these will like in AeroGear - Service Clients - SDKs (iOS, Android, Cordova etc) and IDE Integrations (Android Studio, XCode VS Code etc) - Service APB -- John Frizelle Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile Consulting Engineer mobile: *+353 87 290 1644 <//+353872901644>* twitter:* @johnfriz* skype: *john_frizelle* mail: *jfrizell(a)redhat.com <jfrizell(a)redhat.com&gt;* On 13 December 2017 at 14:08, Wojciech Trocki <wtrocki(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Matthias Wessendorf < >> mwessend(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Craig Brookes <cbrookes(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> As mentioned by John having a consistent pattern for our services and >>>> their various pieces (cli, apb, ui) etc needs to be figured out. >>>> >>>> The options: >>>> >>>> *Single Repo: * We kinda ruled this one out as it unlikely it would >>>> work well against 3rd part integrations such as 3scale or keycloak. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Repo for each piece: *Lots of overhead and different repos. Off the >>>> top of my head it would be: >>>> - repo for any cli piece >>>> - repo for client sdks (iOS, android, cordova) etc .. >>>> - repo for APB >>>> >>> >>> >>> I'd think this is cleanest - each artifact has it's own repository >>> >>> In addition, I think we could also move all the apbs to its own GH org. >>> (aerogearplaybookbundles) >>> >>> >> I think this makes the most sense as well. Tooling likes single repos, >> and a separate org let's us point user to the direct shiny things (in >> aerogear) with out them getting overwhelmed by infrastructure (apb repo). >> >> > +1 for this. > > That will be good separation of concerns for services. Separate > organization for apb which is deployment specific. > Some services may not have cli so we will initially just have service > repository in aerogear and apb in separate org. > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> *Single Repo for clients* >>>> - 1 repo for cli, sdks and (maybe UI too?) >>>> - 1 repo for APB (not a client but is a deployment mechanism). >>>> >>>> >>>> Any other or better options people can think of? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Craig Brookes >>>> RHMAP >>>> @maleck13 Github >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> feedhenry-dev mailing list >>>> feedhenry-dev(a)redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Project lead AeroGear.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> feedhenry-dev mailing list >>> feedhenry-dev(a)redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> feedhenry-dev mailing list >> feedhenry-dev(a)redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev >> >> > > > -- > > WOJCIECH TROCKI > > Red Hat Mobile <https://www.redhat.com/> > > IM: wtrocki > <https://red.ht/sig> > > _______________________________________________ > feedhenry-dev mailing list > feedhenry-dev(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev > > _______________________________________________ feedhenry-dev mailing list feedhenry-dev(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev