On 06/03/2025 17:44, Florian Necas wrote:
> Hi geOrchestra team !
>
> Hope you all doing well :)
> I wanted to talk with you about a wish for geOrchestra codebase.
>
> I've created a moment ago, a diagram with geOrchestra apps, separating
> what we can call "core apps" (auth/database/ldap...) than "module apps".
> It's quite a subjective/dev oriented choice.
>
> Here is the diagram :
> geOrchestra-full-c2c.jpg
>
> In georchestra/georchestra repo we will have only core/essentials
> modules except Cas, gateway, security proxy. (Seems it doesn't get a lot
> of things inside but there's a lot, like common components, ldap, database).
>
> If we do that, we will remove analytics, datafeeder, geonetwork,
> geoserver, og cserver statistics, testcontainers and security-proxy in
> separate repos.
>
> I think it can help developers to maintain smaller components and ease
> upgrade/maintainability of each one and even upgrading a single component.
i get where you're coming from, since apparently for docker concerns
it's a pain to make a 'full' release. or there's another motivation ?
the main concern i have with splitting everything in separate repos (as
i've repeatedly said everytime this topic was brought), is that i fear
it will just complicate the build process.
right now, in the georchestra repo with the current git submodule scheme
for GS/GN, the Makefile allows to build 'everything' (that is in the
monolitic repo) in a single command (and that's how the buildbot/CI does).
having a dozen of repos will just put a bit more work on people building
from the source (which i guess is.. not that many people. maybe only me)
- it might also make inter-dependencies between modules versions for
building complicated ?
as long as it's properly documented..
also, what is this 'apache nas' advanced viewer ? :)
--
Landry Breuil