Hi all,
Geoffroy and I started a discussion about the content of powsybl-core and the opportunity to well separate this repository because:
- it is relatively big enough to be splitted
- modules are heterogeneous, and hard to maintain because functionnally too different

We want to share our proposal to discuss the best way to split powsybl-core:

• powsybl-itools: this repository would contain the itools packager maven plugin, and maybe the powsybl-tools module
• powsybl-commons: this repository would contain the common modules (commons, computation?, config)
• powsybl-grid: this repository would contain IIDM modules (API, impl), and all the converters (UCTE, CGMES, iEEE). It's mainly a renaming of the current powsybl-core repository
• powsybl-time-series: this repository would contain all modules relative to TS
• powsybl-loadflow: this repository would contain the LF API and the OpenLF implementation
• powsybl-security-analysis: this repository would contain the modules relative to SA (contingencies, security analysis, actions...). It could be better tested, if it depends on powsybl-loadflow repository because we coul use the OpenLF implementation. Not possible today, due to a cyclic dependency
• powsybl-dynamic-simulation: this repository would contain the dynamic-simulation API and the dynawo integration
• powsybl-capacity-calculation: this repository would contain the sensitivity calculation API and maybe the balance adjustment modules

Please, give us your feedback about this. I probably forgot some modules so don't hesitate to mention it. I will update this message.

Best,
Mathieu

Hi,

I agree with this proposition. A good addition would be to define also the associated maintainers. I imagine that I will be a/the maintainer of powsybl-capacity-calculation (typo in your message :) ).
I just do not really know if it is a good thing to keep sensitivity calculation as part of "capacity calculation" domain, but as a first step, while it is not used by anyone else, why not.

Regards,
Sébastien

I propose to add maintainers (you right, we have to!) once everyone agree the final proposal!

PS: Thanks for mentioning the typo, I fix it