Belated request for module ids

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Darius Jazayeri-2 Darius Jazayeri-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Belated request for module ids

Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:
  • uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
  • uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
  • appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)
I didn't email [hidden email] at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email] is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email] to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.

[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Burke Mamlin-2 Burke Mamlin-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

That's fine.

Actually, I'd like to abandon our current [hidden email] bottleneck approach to module IDs by adding a UUID to the module config to ensure uniqueness... or by auto-assigning devs a UUID that can be used to namespace any modules they create.

[hidden email] has served us well in ensuring naming conventions are followed in our repository and helping highlight redundant efforts; however, it would be nice to get past the "getting approval" & "ensuring unique module IDs" aspects.  With those gone, the remaining uses of [hidden email] (applying conventions & recognizing/highlighting redundant efforts) could probably be done better & in a more public way as well.

-Burke

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:
  • uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
  • uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
  • appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)
I didn't email [hidden email] at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email] is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email] to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Mark Goodrich-2 Mark Goodrich-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

In reply to this post by Darius Jazayeri-2
To add on to that, I can get a module id of providermanagement blessed for the Provider Management module?  This module adds a new object, Provider Role, which is linked to a Provider via a column it adds to the Provider table.  A Provider Role can be associated with Provider Attributes, Relationship Types (to specify different types of supported Provider/Patient relationships), and other Provider Roles (to define allowed Supervisor/Supervisee relationships between Provider Roles).  The module provides an API and UI to manage providers and provider relationships.  The module is not yet complete, but I will be doing a work-in-progress demo on the Developers's Call next Thursday.

Mark






________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Darius Jazayeri [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 6:56 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids

Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:

 *   uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
 *   uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
 *   appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)

I didn't email [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework<http://github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework> without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.
________________________________
Click here to unsubscribe<mailto:[hidden email]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list

_________________________________________

To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [hidden email] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the  body (not the subject) of your e-mail.

[mailto:[hidden email]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
Burke Mamlin Burke Mamlin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

+1

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Mark Goodrich <[hidden email]> wrote:
To add on to that, I can get a module id of providermanagement blessed for the Provider Management module?  This module adds a new object, Provider Role, which is linked to a Provider via a column it adds to the Provider table.  A Provider Role can be associated with Provider Attributes, Relationship Types (to specify different types of supported Provider/Patient relationships), and other Provider Roles (to define allowed Supervisor/Supervisee relationships between Provider Roles).  The module provides an API and UI to manage providers and provider relationships.  The module is not yet complete, but I will be doing a work-in-progress demo on the Developers's Call next Thursday.

Mark

[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Ben Wolfe (openmrs) Ben Wolfe (openmrs)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

I still think we need some sort of central way of seeing at least most of what is out there.  But I agree that "[hidden email]" is potentially a bottleneck.

Perhaps just a wiki page describing all the "rules" we have about a module id?  That page could have a simple list of moduleids - descriptions so devs can see if the one they want to use is already used.   Since we have svn, git, and other external locations for modules that people can place them, its up to them to decide.

I don't think adding a uuid is really necessary.  If two devs create a module with the same id, the first one will be able to upload to the module repo.  They second will have to choose to host elsewhere or change their id.

Has anyone ever created a script to help rename a module id easily?

Ben

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Burke Mamlin <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1


On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Mark Goodrich <[hidden email]> wrote:
To add on to that, I can get a module id of providermanagement blessed for the Provider Management module?  This module adds a new object, Provider Role, which is linked to a Provider via a column it adds to the Provider table.  A Provider Role can be associated with Provider Attributes, Relationship Types (to specify different types of supported Provider/Patient relationships), and other Provider Roles (to define allowed Supervisor/Supervisee relationships between Provider Roles).  The module provides an API and UI to manage providers and provider relationships.  The module is not yet complete, but I will be doing a work-in-progress demo on the Developers's Call next Thursday.

Mark

[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Rowan Seymour-2 Rowan Seymour-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

In reply to this post by Burke Mamlin-2
Isn't the most useful function of a module id to serve as a unique Java subpackage? 

On 12 May 2012 06:10, Burke Mamlin <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's fine.

Actually, I'd like to abandon our current [hidden email] bottleneck approach to module IDs by adding a UUID to the module config to ensure uniqueness... or by auto-assigning devs a UUID that can be used to namespace any modules they create.

[hidden email] has served us well in ensuring naming conventions are followed in our repository and helping highlight redundant efforts; however, it would be nice to get past the "getting approval" & "ensuring unique module IDs" aspects.  With those gone, the remaining uses of [hidden email] (applying conventions & recognizing/highlighting redundant efforts) could probably be done better & in a more public way as well.

-Burke


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:
  • uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
  • uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
  • appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)
I didn't email [hidden email] at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email] is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email] to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list



--
Rowan Seymour
tel: +250 783835665
http://twitter.com/rowanseymour


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Darius Jazayeri-3 Darius Jazayeri-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

Indeed, our tooling and documentation (either copying the basicmodule or using the maven archetype) pushes people to namespace their modules as org.openmrs.module.moduleid.

It seems like the module package (and maven group ID) should be the solution to Burke's wanting a uuid in each new module.

One possible convention could be that if you're using the "org.openmrs.module" namespace, you are suggested to email [hidden email] and request the id, whereas if you're using any other namespace, you need to follow whatever policies the owner of that namespace sets out.

For example:
* org.openmrs.module.uiframework -> need to follow OpenMRS policy: ask [hidden email]
* org.pih.openmrs.uiframework -> need to follow PIH policy
* com.djazayeri.uiframework -> do whatever I want

The downside to this approach is that it makes it more of a task to take a module developed in another namespace, and turn it into an "OpenMRS-owned" module.

That said, for the specific "uiframework" example, I'd have known from the beginning that I definitely want it to be a "core OpenMRS" module someday, so I'd have requested an org.openmrs.module space.

Whereas the work I'm doing on "zip of omods", and the work Mark is doing on provider management could make sense to start off under org.pih. And there's no reason they couldn't live there long-term, really.

Just brainstorming here, what do others think about this?

-Darius

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Rowan Seymour <[hidden email]> wrote:
Isn't the most useful function of a module id to serve as a unique Java subpackage? 

On 12 May 2012 06:10, Burke Mamlin <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's fine.

Actually, I'd like to abandon our current [hidden email] bottleneck approach to module IDs by adding a UUID to the module config to ensure uniqueness... or by auto-assigning devs a UUID that can be used to namespace any modules they create.

[hidden email] has served us well in ensuring naming conventions are followed in our repository and helping highlight redundant efforts; however, it would be nice to get past the "getting approval" & "ensuring unique module IDs" aspects.  With those gone, the remaining uses of [hidden email] (applying conventions & recognizing/highlighting redundant efforts) could probably be done better & in a more public way as well.

-Burke


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:
  • uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
  • uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
  • appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)
I didn't email [hidden email] at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email] is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email] to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list



--
Rowan Seymour
tel: <a href="tel:%2B250%20783835665" value="+250783835665" target="_blank">+250 783835665
http://twitter.com/rowanseymour



[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Burke Mamlin Burke Mamlin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

Do we make any assumptions about the packaging of code within a module (i.e., do we ever assume the package name instead of depending on reference(s) to module package names or fully specified classes made in the config.xml)?  Hopefully not.

-Burke

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed, our tooling and documentation (either copying the basicmodule or using the maven archetype) pushes people to namespace their modules as org.openmrs.module.moduleid.

It seems like the module package (and maven group ID) should be the solution to Burke's wanting a uuid in each new module.

One possible convention could be that if you're using the "org.openmrs.module" namespace, you are suggested to email [hidden email] and request the id, whereas if you're using any other namespace, you need to follow whatever policies the owner of that namespace sets out.

For example:
* org.openmrs.module.uiframework -> need to follow OpenMRS policy: ask [hidden email]
* org.pih.openmrs.uiframework -> need to follow PIH policy
* com.djazayeri.uiframework -> do whatever I want

The downside to this approach is that it makes it more of a task to take a module developed in another namespace, and turn it into an "OpenMRS-owned" module.

That said, for the specific "uiframework" example, I'd have known from the beginning that I definitely want it to be a "core OpenMRS" module someday, so I'd have requested an org.openmrs.module space.

Whereas the work I'm doing on "zip of omods", and the work Mark is doing on provider management could make sense to start off under org.pih. And there's no reason they couldn't live there long-term, really.

Just brainstorming here, what do others think about this?

-Darius


On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Rowan Seymour <[hidden email]> wrote:
Isn't the most useful function of a module id to serve as a unique Java subpackage? 

On 12 May 2012 06:10, Burke Mamlin <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's fine.

Actually, I'd like to abandon our current [hidden email] bottleneck approach to module IDs by adding a UUID to the module config to ensure uniqueness... or by auto-assigning devs a UUID that can be used to namespace any modules they create.

[hidden email] has served us well in ensuring naming conventions are followed in our repository and helping highlight redundant efforts; however, it would be nice to get past the "getting approval" & "ensuring unique module IDs" aspects.  With those gone, the remaining uses of [hidden email] (applying conventions & recognizing/highlighting redundant efforts) could probably be done better & in a more public way as well.

-Burke


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:
  • uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
  • uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
  • appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)
I didn't email [hidden email] at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email] is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email] to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list



--
Rowan Seymour
tel: <a href="tel:%2B250%20783835665" value="+250783835665" target="_blank">+250 783835665
http://twitter.com/rowanseymour



[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Darius Jazayeri-2 Darius Jazayeri-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

I believe the maven archetype has a bug if you choose a different package, but our core code handles it fine.

-Darius (by phone)

On May 13, 2012 2:08 PM, "Burke Mamlin" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Do we make any assumptions about the packaging of code within a module (i.e., do we ever assume the package name instead of depending on reference(s) to module package names or fully specified classes made in the config.xml)?  Hopefully not.

-Burke

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed, our tooling and documentation (either copying the basicmodule or using the maven archetype) pushes people to namespace their modules as org.openmrs.module.moduleid.

It seems like the module package (and maven group ID) should be the solution to Burke's wanting a uuid in each new module.

One possible convention could be that if you're using the "org.openmrs.module" namespace, you are suggested to email [hidden email] and request the id, whereas if you're using any other namespace, you need to follow whatever policies the owner of that namespace sets out.

For example:
* org.openmrs.module.uiframework -> need to follow OpenMRS policy: ask [hidden email]
* org.pih.openmrs.uiframework -> need to follow PIH policy
* com.djazayeri.uiframework -> do whatever I want

The downside to this approach is that it makes it more of a task to take a module developed in another namespace, and turn it into an "OpenMRS-owned" module.

That said, for the specific "uiframework" example, I'd have known from the beginning that I definitely want it to be a "core OpenMRS" module someday, so I'd have requested an org.openmrs.module space.

Whereas the work I'm doing on "zip of omods", and the work Mark is doing on provider management could make sense to start off under org.pih. And there's no reason they couldn't live there long-term, really.

Just brainstorming here, what do others think about this?

-Darius


On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Rowan Seymour <[hidden email]> wrote:
Isn't the most useful function of a module id to serve as a unique Java subpackage? 

On 12 May 2012 06:10, Burke Mamlin <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's fine.

Actually, I'd like to abandon our current [hidden email] bottleneck approach to module IDs by adding a UUID to the module config to ensure uniqueness... or by auto-assigning devs a UUID that can be used to namespace any modules they create.

[hidden email] has served us well in ensuring naming conventions are followed in our repository and helping highlight redundant efforts; however, it would be nice to get past the "getting approval" & "ensuring unique module IDs" aspects.  With those gone, the remaining uses of [hidden email] (applying conventions & recognizing/highlighting redundant efforts) could probably be done better & in a more public way as well.

-Burke


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:
  • uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
  • uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
  • appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)
I didn't email [hidden email] at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email] is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email] to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list



--
Rowan Seymour
tel: <a href="tel:%2B250%20783835665" value="+250783835665" target="_blank">+250 783835665
http://twitter.com/rowanseymour



[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list

[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Ben Wolfe (openmrs) Ben Wolfe (openmrs)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

I like the idea of using the code@openmrs list for only org.openmrs packaged modules.  Perhaps that will remove the notion of it being a possible bottleneck?

Openmrs has no expectations of "org.openmrs.module" in the package.  However, it does expect to have unique module ids in a given install.  There are many places that make a call like ModuleFactory.getModuleById("distribution").

If we truly wanted to allow a wild west of naming, we would simply have to change all references and force the calls to be ModuleFactory.getModuleByPackage("org.pih.distribution").

The module repo also has an expectation of unique module ids.  So its urls would need to be updated to use the full package as well.

Ben

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:

I believe the maven archetype has a bug if you choose a different package, but our core code handles it fine.

-Darius (by phone)

On May 13, 2012 2:08 PM, "Burke Mamlin" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Do we make any assumptions about the packaging of code within a module (i.e., do we ever assume the package name instead of depending on reference(s) to module package names or fully specified classes made in the config.xml)?  Hopefully not.

-Burke

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed, our tooling and documentation (either copying the basicmodule or using the maven archetype) pushes people to namespace their modules as org.openmrs.module.moduleid.

It seems like the module package (and maven group ID) should be the solution to Burke's wanting a uuid in each new module.

One possible convention could be that if you're using the "org.openmrs.module" namespace, you are suggested to email [hidden email] and request the id, whereas if you're using any other namespace, you need to follow whatever policies the owner of that namespace sets out.

For example:
* org.openmrs.module.uiframework -> need to follow OpenMRS policy: ask [hidden email]
* org.pih.openmrs.uiframework -> need to follow PIH policy
* com.djazayeri.uiframework -> do whatever I want

The downside to this approach is that it makes it more of a task to take a module developed in another namespace, and turn it into an "OpenMRS-owned" module.

That said, for the specific "uiframework" example, I'd have known from the beginning that I definitely want it to be a "core OpenMRS" module someday, so I'd have requested an org.openmrs.module space.

Whereas the work I'm doing on "zip of omods", and the work Mark is doing on provider management could make sense to start off under org.pih. And there's no reason they couldn't live there long-term, really.

Just brainstorming here, what do others think about this?

-Darius


On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Rowan Seymour <[hidden email]> wrote:
Isn't the most useful function of a module id to serve as a unique Java subpackage? 

On 12 May 2012 06:10, Burke Mamlin <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's fine.

Actually, I'd like to abandon our current [hidden email] bottleneck approach to module IDs by adding a UUID to the module config to ensure uniqueness... or by auto-assigning devs a UUID that can be used to namespace any modules they create.

[hidden email] has served us well in ensuring naming conventions are followed in our repository and helping highlight redundant efforts; however, it would be nice to get past the "getting approval" & "ensuring unique module IDs" aspects.  With those gone, the remaining uses of [hidden email] (applying conventions & recognizing/highlighting redundant efforts) could probably be done better & in a more public way as well.

-Burke


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:
  • uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
  • uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
  • appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)
I didn't email [hidden email] at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email] is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email] to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list



--
Rowan Seymour
tel: <a href="tel:%2B250%20783835665" value="+250783835665" target="_blank">+250 783835665
http://twitter.com/rowanseymour



[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list

[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Burke Mamlin Burke Mamlin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

How about assuming that a module ID without a period in it is org.openmrs.moduleid; otherwise, module IDs should be fully specified – e.g., com.burkeware.mymodule.

In other words, migrate toward module IDs being fully qualified.

-Burke

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Ben Wolfe <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like the idea of using the code@openmrs list for only org.openmrs packaged modules.  Perhaps that will remove the notion of it being a possible bottleneck?

Openmrs has no expectations of "org.openmrs.module" in the package.  However, it does expect to have unique module ids in a given install.  There are many places that make a call like ModuleFactory.getModuleById("distribution").

If we truly wanted to allow a wild west of naming, we would simply have to change all references and force the calls to be ModuleFactory.getModuleByPackage("org.pih.distribution").

The module repo also has an expectation of unique module ids.  So its urls would need to be updated to use the full package as well.

Ben


On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:

I believe the maven archetype has a bug if you choose a different package, but our core code handles it fine.

-Darius (by phone)

On May 13, 2012 2:08 PM, "Burke Mamlin" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Do we make any assumptions about the packaging of code within a module (i.e., do we ever assume the package name instead of depending on reference(s) to module package names or fully specified classes made in the config.xml)?  Hopefully not.

-Burke

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed, our tooling and documentation (either copying the basicmodule or using the maven archetype) pushes people to namespace their modules as org.openmrs.module.moduleid.

It seems like the module package (and maven group ID) should be the solution to Burke's wanting a uuid in each new module.

One possible convention could be that if you're using the "org.openmrs.module" namespace, you are suggested to email [hidden email] and request the id, whereas if you're using any other namespace, you need to follow whatever policies the owner of that namespace sets out.

For example:
* org.openmrs.module.uiframework -> need to follow OpenMRS policy: ask [hidden email]
* org.pih.openmrs.uiframework -> need to follow PIH policy
* com.djazayeri.uiframework -> do whatever I want

The downside to this approach is that it makes it more of a task to take a module developed in another namespace, and turn it into an "OpenMRS-owned" module.

That said, for the specific "uiframework" example, I'd have known from the beginning that I definitely want it to be a "core OpenMRS" module someday, so I'd have requested an org.openmrs.module space.

Whereas the work I'm doing on "zip of omods", and the work Mark is doing on provider management could make sense to start off under org.pih. And there's no reason they couldn't live there long-term, really.

Just brainstorming here, what do others think about this?

-Darius


On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Rowan Seymour <[hidden email]> wrote:
Isn't the most useful function of a module id to serve as a unique Java subpackage? 

On 12 May 2012 06:10, Burke Mamlin <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's fine.

Actually, I'd like to abandon our current [hidden email] bottleneck approach to module IDs by adding a UUID to the module config to ensure uniqueness... or by auto-assigning devs a UUID that can be used to namespace any modules they create.

[hidden email] has served us well in ensuring naming conventions are followed in our repository and helping highlight redundant efforts; however, it would be nice to get past the "getting approval" & "ensuring unique module IDs" aspects.  With those gone, the remaining uses of [hidden email] (applying conventions & recognizing/highlighting redundant efforts) could probably be done better & in a more public way as well.

-Burke


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:
  • uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
  • uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
  • appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)
I didn't email [hidden email] at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email] is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email] to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list



--
Rowan Seymour
tel: <a href="tel:%2B250%20783835665" value="+250783835665" target="_blank">+250 783835665
http://twitter.com/rowanseymour



[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list

[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Ben Wolfe (openmrs) Ben Wolfe (openmrs)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids

Good idea, seems doable.  I created this ticket: https://tickets.openmrs.org/browse/TRUNK-3349

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Burke Mamlin <[hidden email]> wrote:
How about assuming that a module ID without a period in it is org.openmrs.moduleid; otherwise, module IDs should be fully specified – e.g., com.burkeware.mymodule.

In other words, migrate toward module IDs being fully qualified.

-Burke


On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Ben Wolfe <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like the idea of using the code@openmrs list for only org.openmrs packaged modules.  Perhaps that will remove the notion of it being a possible bottleneck?

Openmrs has no expectations of "org.openmrs.module" in the package.  However, it does expect to have unique module ids in a given install.  There are many places that make a call like ModuleFactory.getModuleById("distribution").

If we truly wanted to allow a wild west of naming, we would simply have to change all references and force the calls to be ModuleFactory.getModuleByPackage("org.pih.distribution").

The module repo also has an expectation of unique module ids.  So its urls would need to be updated to use the full package as well.

Ben


On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:

I believe the maven archetype has a bug if you choose a different package, but our core code handles it fine.

-Darius (by phone)

On May 13, 2012 2:08 PM, "Burke Mamlin" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Do we make any assumptions about the packaging of code within a module (i.e., do we ever assume the package name instead of depending on reference(s) to module package names or fully specified classes made in the config.xml)?  Hopefully not.

-Burke

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed, our tooling and documentation (either copying the basicmodule or using the maven archetype) pushes people to namespace their modules as org.openmrs.module.moduleid.

It seems like the module package (and maven group ID) should be the solution to Burke's wanting a uuid in each new module.

One possible convention could be that if you're using the "org.openmrs.module" namespace, you are suggested to email [hidden email] and request the id, whereas if you're using any other namespace, you need to follow whatever policies the owner of that namespace sets out.

For example:
* org.openmrs.module.uiframework -> need to follow OpenMRS policy: ask [hidden email]
* org.pih.openmrs.uiframework -> need to follow PIH policy
* com.djazayeri.uiframework -> do whatever I want

The downside to this approach is that it makes it more of a task to take a module developed in another namespace, and turn it into an "OpenMRS-owned" module.

That said, for the specific "uiframework" example, I'd have known from the beginning that I definitely want it to be a "core OpenMRS" module someday, so I'd have requested an org.openmrs.module space.

Whereas the work I'm doing on "zip of omods", and the work Mark is doing on provider management could make sense to start off under org.pih. And there's no reason they couldn't live there long-term, really.

Just brainstorming here, what do others think about this?

-Darius


On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Rowan Seymour <[hidden email]> wrote:
Isn't the most useful function of a module id to serve as a unique Java subpackage? 

On 12 May 2012 06:10, Burke Mamlin <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's fine.

Actually, I'd like to abandon our current [hidden email] bottleneck approach to module IDs by adding a UUID to the module config to ensure uniqueness... or by auto-assigning devs a UUID that can be used to namespace any modules they create.

[hidden email] has served us well in ensuring naming conventions are followed in our repository and helping highlight redundant efforts; however, it would be nice to get past the "getting approval" & "ensuring unique module IDs" aspects.  With those gone, the remaining uses of [hidden email] (applying conventions & recognizing/highlighting redundant efforts) could probably be done better & in a more public way as well.

-Burke


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:
  • uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
  • uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
  • appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)
I didn't email [hidden email] at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email] is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email] to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list



--
Rowan Seymour
tel: <a href="tel:%2B250%20783835665" value="+250783835665" target="_blank">+250 783835665
http://twitter.com/rowanseymour



[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list

[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list


[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list