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