I definitely agree multiple repositories are yet another complexity vector that should be approached very cautiously. Aside from the maintenance overhead, multiple repositories would likely be significantly more difficult for new contributors to navigate and even for us to document. Indeed my thought was to have the generation UI as a separate Maven module with a parent POM containing the common configuration.
There is also a lot of merit to the idea of evaluating splitting into different archetypes or repositories at a later point in time after we have delivered a bit more of the basic functionality and things have been relatively stabilized in terms of code evolution. Having to repeat basically the same code several times just to add support for an additional runtime or improve the look/feel of the index page sounds quite cumbersome right now for example.
Hi Everyone.
On one hand I understand Ivo's POV about the benefits of having this granularity but I wonder if this is needed at all for now.
The project is (still) really small and we shouldn't have to deal with something like this for what we have today.
Also, I completely disagree with the multiple repo's approach. This can get too spread and may confuse whoever is willing to help us in the project.
And if we really wanna have more archetypes, A multi-module project should be enough rigth?
In the future, yes, maybe we will need more archetypes since the original idea was to provided multiple examples wit the different apis, something that probably cant be reused easily.
I'm just questioning if thats the right moment, since we already have a roadmap to cover