Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

restructured language directory to one directory per language #1900

Conversation

Fjolnir-Dvorak
Copy link
Contributor

@Fjolnir-Dvorak Fjolnir-Dvorak commented Jan 12, 2019

PR checklist

  • Read the contribution guidelines.
  • Ran the shell script under ./bin/ to update Petstore sample so that CIs can verify the change. (For instance, only need to run ./bin/{LANG}-petstore.sh and ./bin/security/{LANG}-petstore.sh if updating the {LANG} (e.g. php, ruby, python, etc) code generator or {LANG} client's mustache templates). Windows batch files can be found in .\bin\windows\.
  • Filed the PR against the correct branch: master, 3.4.x, 4.0.x. Default: master.
  • Copied the technical committee to review the pull request if your PR is targeting a particular programming language.

Description of the PR

Tracking Pull request for the refactoring of the language directory to one directory per language.
Referring ticket #1893 ([REQ] Code Refactoring: strucuring modules/openapi-generator/src/main/java/org/openapitools/codegen/languages into one package per language)

…ut I do not have checked the documentation if everything is still valid
@jimschubert
Copy link
Member

Thanks for this PR. I'm concerned that this introduces the language-as-a-toplevel generator construct that we've been getting away from since the start of this fork. And this change will directly conflict with the refactoring design put forth here: https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator/projects/5

@Fjolnir-Dvorak
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok. That was just the first thing that came to my mind to try to help you to improve the maintainability, readablily and the modularity of the project.

@jimschubert
Copy link
Member

@Fjolnir-Dvorak I'd be interested in your feedback regarding the approach I've proposed in #842.

@jimschubert
Copy link
Member

Also, for reference of the refactor which I had mentioned, see #845

@wing328
Copy link
Member

wing328 commented Mar 31, 2019

@Fjolnir-Dvorak thanks for the PR but at this stage we'll proceed further with this change based on the reasons provided by @jimschubert

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants