On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Craig Brookes <cbrookes(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: 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) -- Project lead AeroGear.org

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <mwessend(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: 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).

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:

Interesting that firebase pull all functionality for a specific SDK into a single repo [1] rather than repo per feature per client tech... This is the approach we currently take, but in terms of organisation have historically had a single SDK team managing the SDKs. With the new team structures, we could have multiple teams contributing to a single tech-centric repo rather than a specific team who owns the SDKs. [1] https://github.com/firebase/firebase-ios-sdk/tree/master/Firebase -- 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 14:23, David Martin <davmarti(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Phil Brookes <pbrookes(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: +1 right - it's much simpler to have one repo for "android/java-sync-client" instead of all "sync-clients" - that way I'd have to deal with the mess I am not even remotely interested in (e.g. swift-sync-client) +1 , for APBs - which are really useless outside of the "service broker" I think a dedicated ORG has the benefit of drawing logical lines amen :) -- Project lead AeroGear.org

what about client SDKs, or services? Should we create orgs for them as well? If not, why APBs are treated differently? I’m working with some assumptions here, so please correct me if I’ve got them wrong. I think the difference here is that we want and expect the developers of other products to develop their own APBs, I do not think that we expect external developers to create their own client SDKs for use within MCP? Though they may well contribute to the existing client SDKs. As for the services, wouldn’t an external service be something like Redis or MySQL? I’m not sure how that fits into this discussion. APBs are not consumed by us, they are consumed by the ASB and could have their own value outside of the MCP environment. Regards, Phil. ​ On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Wei Li <weil(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

I think that's right, but in most cases, wouldn't they create the APB in their own orgs anyway, so they can keep maintaining the APBs? As for the services, wouldn’t an external service be something like Redis I was talking about our own services, like sync/push etc. i.e. “everything in this org is an APB which might help” vs “well… this This probably is the best reason I can see so far to have a separated org, but we can achieve the same thing if we just make sure all the APB repo names contains "apb" and developers will be able to quickly find the anyway. So does it really worth the efforts to maintain another org, as of now? Should we just leave them in the same org for now, and we can move them out if the community feels like it's the right thing to do? On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <mwessend(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > yeah, as a logical seperation - that this is just glue code to get things > in, via the service broker. > I share the view that an APB is something different than a (mobile) SDK or > a (server) library > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Phil Brookes <pbrookes(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> what about client SDKs, or services? Should we create orgs for them as >> well? If not, why APBs are treated differently? >> >> I’m working with some assumptions here, so please correct me if I’ve got >> them wrong. >> >> I think the difference here is that we want and expect the developers of >> other products to develop their own APBs, I do not think that we expect >> external developers to create their own client SDKs for use within MCP? >> Though they may well contribute to the existing client SDKs. >> >> As for the services, wouldn’t an external service be something like Redis >>> >> APBs are not consumed by us, they are consumed by the ASB and could have >> their own value outside of the MCP environment. >> >> Regards, >> Phil. >> ​ >> >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Wei Li <weil(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> I am in favour of separate repo for each item as well. However, I am not >>> convinced about separate APB org, or why there is only an org for APBs, >>> what about client SDKs, or services? Should we create orgs for them as >>> well? If not, why APBs are treated differently? >>> >>> I think it's ok to have everything in one org, but I think we should >>> have a website that clearly describe how things are organised. I would >>> image we will have a dedicated page for each service, and from there >>> developers/community members can find everything they need about a service. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>> mwessend(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Phil Brookes <pbrookes(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ​Hey Everyone, >>>>> ​ >>>>> I agree with Dave that a separate repo for each item is more community >>>>> friendly. I feel that this will encourage developers to contribute to our >>>>> projects. Primarily because they would only have to learn the scope of the >>>>> part they actually want to contribute to, rather than having to dig through >>>>> a repository which is several projects merged together and work out what is >>>>> and isn’t related to the component that they wish to contribute to. >>>>> >>>> +1 >>>> right - it's much simpler to have one repo for >>>> "android/java-sync-client" instead of all "sync-clients" - that way I'd >>>> have to deal with the mess I am not even remotely interested in (e.g. >>>> swift-sync-client) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It is that same mentality that makes me favour a separate org >>>>> dedicated to APBs, as I feel that we would ultimately hope that the >>>>> developers of other products will build and maintain their own APBs, and >>>>> having a whole organisation full of only working examples of how we have >>>>> achieved their goals is a great resource to point those developers at. >>>>> >>>> +1 >>>> , for APBs - which are really useless outside of the "service broker" I >>>> think a dedicated ORG has the benefit of drawing logical lines >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> i.e. “everything in this org is an APB which might help” vs “well… >>>>> this repo, and this repo and this repo might help but ignore this repo, >>>>> this repo and this repo, they are completely unrelated…” >>>>> >>>> >>>> amen :) >>>> >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Phil. >>>>> ​ >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:29 PM, John Frizelle <jfrizell(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Interesting that firebase pull all functionality for a specific SDK >>>>>> into a single repo [1] rather than repo per feature per client tech... >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the approach we currently take, but in terms of organisation >>>>>> have historically had a single SDK team managing the SDKs. With the new >>>>>> team structures, we could have multiple teams contributing to a single >>>>>> tech-centric repo rather than a specific team who owns the SDKs. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/firebase/firebase-ios-sdk/tree/master/Firebase >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 14:23, David Martin <davmarti(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> My vote is for separate repos for everything as its what's typically >>>>>>> done in communities. >>>>>>> It will immediately be more accessible to community contributors as >>>>>>> they'll likely be contributing to a single thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For example: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * the keycloak org https://github.com/keycloak has different repos >>>>>>> for the node client, js client & java client. >>>>>>> * Similarly, the prometheus org https://github.com/prometheus has >>>>>>> different repos for each client >>>>>>> * Firebase have different repos for each of their SDKs >>>>>>> https://github.com/firebase/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A repo solution that involves mixing languages and concepts in a >>>>>>> single repo is for the benefit of us developing across many things, rather >>>>>>> than community focused. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 13 December 2017 at 14:14, John Frizelle <jfrizell(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> David Martin >>>>>>> Red Hat Mobile >>>>>>> Twitter: @irldavem >>>>>>> IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Project lead AeroGear.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> feedhenry-dev mailing list >>>> feedhenry-dev(a)redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> WEI LI >>> >>> SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER >>> >>> Red Hat Mobile <https://www.redhat.com/> >>> >>> weil(a)redhat.com M: +353862393272 >>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Project lead AeroGear.org > -- WEI LI SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER Red Hat Mobile <https://www.redhat.com/> weil(a)redhat.com M: +353862393272 <https://red.ht/sig>

In relation to Firebase: What's worth to mention that apart from having all source in the single repository all components are published as separate artifacts. For example in IOS you can use only Storage or auth by executing: *pod 'Firebase/Storage'* They have done the same for js-sdk, by having multiple npm modules in mono repo: https://github.com/firebase/firebase-js-sdk/pull/171 They using proven tool: lerna to manage all npm packages. On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:29 PM, John Frizelle <jfrizell(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: -- WOJCIECH TROCKI Red Hat Mobile <https://www.redhat.com/> IM: wtrocki <https://red.ht/sig>