4

I am planning to develop a new application that will heavily use a library that will be developed from scratch specifically for the application, but made general enough for it to be used for other programs once it's finished.

So the development of this library is going to be heavily driven by the development of the application. It'll get features based on how important that feature is to the paired application. All the same, I want the library to be completely decoupled from the application. The application uses the library, but the library is unaware of the application and at some point of time, I'll want to ensure that the library can easily be used in other applications.

I'm looking for advice on how to structure this. In particular, where the code for the library should be located (same/different repo, some kind of build tool to keep them separate, etc).

Since this may be language dependent (as a result of build tools and other language differences), I am planning to use Python.

1

First, if your library is generic, it should NOT be influenced by the application. It should provide the functionality that it is designed to provide. Application is based on the library, not the other way around.

Whether you keep it the same repository or different one, doesn't matter - have it a separate project though.

I would do a technical design first and define all the required functionality. Then I would separate the functionality into presentation layer, business layer and data persistent layer. Then I would implement it starting from the bottom (persistence layer).

  • The library is influenced by the application in that the application has many requirements of a variety of priorities and the library development would be prioritized by what the application needs. I then hope to be able to use this library for other uses (or to allows others to do the same). The way the library would be used gives a lot of potential to make things far more versatile, which is the long term goal. – Kat Jun 22 '15 at 20:48
  • I actually care more about the library than the application using it. The application is partially to demonstrate the functionality of the library, partly to test it, and partly as something I also want to do. The library in question is a game engine for a particular style of game and the "genericness" comes from how I hope to make the library general enough to speed up the development of these style of games. – Kat Jun 22 '15 at 20:49
  • Right, and you have concluded yourself, that library is the main component, and as such, should be designed on it's own with it's own requirements - obviously derived from the final business goal. – Alexus Jun 22 '15 at 22:35
1

I'll start with the generic language neutral stuff first, and then I'll cover the python specific bits.

Why are you so sure that there needs to be a seperate library? Is it because different developers working on the code? or are there plans to reuse the library in additional applications? or even to distribute the library on its own to customers.

In general, if your library has its own independent life, then you need to consider how you are going to manage the different release life cycle, and making it a seperate repository would help with that, at the cost of increasing the complexity for the developers working on both projects as part of the same development task. Which way you decide on this will have long term impact on your team, and will have wide reaching consequences in how you optimise your teams work patterns and development practices. both ways can work if implemented well, and both can fail badly if implemented and managed poorly.

With Python, best practice is to release your components as python packages. Whilst it is possible to have multiple packages in the same repository, I probably would push hard for a different repository per package, and then to have multiple python virtual environments. The development environment would have the packages installed using the source files in place, with the release environment would be created by installing the packages as finished packages. Switching between these environments allows easy testing of all possible comnbinations. This is the pythonic way.

  • The library in question is a fairly specific game engine. The reason I want it to be a separate library is because I hope to be able to use the library for different games of the same general style (but the first game I have planned is the focus of development). So for now, the library does not have its own independent life, but it would in the future. I want to keep it cleanly separated from the using application so that it'll be easy to use just the library once we reach that point. – Kat Jun 22 '15 at 20:52
  • @Mike If that's the case I wouldn't separate the engine from the game, at least not just yet. You don't know what parts of the code you will reuse in other projects until you start creating them. Such blind guesses will only introduce problems (mostly of design nature) and will slow down the process of developing both the game and engine itself. – Mateusz K. Jun 23 '15 at 13:45
0

It is not a matter of programming language.

If you'll write your library with 'this is general purpose library' in mind you can be successful. But, if I were your I'd start development of both in the same place, in the same repository. Later you can extract this library into another project.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.