Skip to content

Conversation

@Sushisource
Copy link
Member

In prep for Rust SDK, reorganizes and renames crates according to the new structure.

Lang layers will need to do some find-replaces on their use statements, but otherwise no impact.

@Sushisource Sushisource requested a review from a team as a code owner October 14, 2025 23:07
@Sushisource Sushisource force-pushed the crate-reorg branch 3 times, most recently from 02c9740 to 004d7b4 Compare October 15, 2025 00:50
@@ -1,10 +1,15 @@
[package]
name = "temporal-sdk-core-c-bridge"
name = "temporalio-sdk-core-c-bridge"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For consistency, we should either call this temporalio-core-c-bridge or change the dir to sdk-core-c-bridge

@@ -1,10 +1,7 @@
[package]
name = "temporal-sdk-core"
name = "temporalio-sdk-core"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For consistency, we should either call this temporalio-core or change the dir to sdk-core

Copy link
Member Author

@Sushisource Sushisource Oct 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I can't decide if these should have sdk-core or just core in the name (in general). Open to suggestions.

Copy link
Member

@cretz cretz Oct 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I can see arguments both ways. I like core-<whatever> because they aren't specific to SDK, but I like sdk-core-<whatever> because the less-wieldy name implies they shouldn't be directly depended on ever. Today it's the latter (so generated artifacts are like libtemporal_sdk_core_c_bridge.so) but we have no requirement to keep that name.

Also, I don't think the C bridge really has any extra dependencies (but it does run an extra build step), if you wanted to make it a module instead of a crate. But also fine leaving as a crate.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Went with rename of dir

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about top-level folders for tests and sdk-core-protos, should they similarly be reorg'd? I figure non-crate stuff like etc and docker and such we can discuss separately.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

They are. Tests is moved inside the core crate. Protos is inside common. Docker is moved inside etc with all other misc. stuff

@Sushisource Sushisource merged commit 5560b4a into master Oct 22, 2025
19 checks passed
@Sushisource Sushisource deleted the crate-reorg branch October 22, 2025 00:49
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.

4 participants