Hi All, IMO it's better if we can maintain third-party libraries as a separate entity. Usually, most of the third party libs have their own dependencies (ex: some CSS files refer images/ fonts ). If we place them separately it's hard to identify relevant dependency at a glance.
At the same time, I would like to propose to have library version as well. This will really useful if someone wants to upgrade third-party lib etc. Regards, *Dakshika Jayathilaka* PMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos Senior Software Engineer WSO2, Inc. lean.enterprise.middleware 0771100911 On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Tanya Madurapperuma <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > During an offline discussion with Jerad following modification were > suggested regarding the directory structure of the extension model. All > these changes are subjected to js and css file locations. > > *Chart template structure* > > |── line-chart > │ ├── css > │ │ └── line-chart.css > │ └── js > │ ├── d3.min.js > │ ├── vega.js > │ └── VizGrammar.min.js > |── config.json > ├── api.js > > > *Changes to the existing model* > > - rename index.js to api.js > - rename chart-libs folder to js > - have a css folder in the same level > > > *Generated gadget structure* > > └── test_gadget > │ │ ├── conf.json > │ │ ├── css > │ │ │ └── line-chart.css > │ │ ├── gadget-controller.jag > │ │ ├── gadget.json > │ │ ├── index.png > │ │ ├── index.xml > │ │ └── js > │ │ ├── core > │ │ │ ├── gadget-core.js > │ │ │ ├── line-chart-api.js > │ │ │ └── provider-api.js > │ │ ├── d3.min.js > │ │ ├── vega.js > │ │ └── VizGrammar.min.js > > > *Changes to the existing model* > > - Instead of the *chart-libs* folder inside *js* folder, have a *core > *folder > inside *js *folder and place chart specific js files in js folder > > > *Folder structure for storing common libs* > > portal > |── gadget-commons > > ├── css > │ └── common.css > └── js > └── common.js > > > *Changes to the existing model* > > - Now we have common libs inside portal/libs/common-chart-libs/ > > *chart config.json* > > "common": { > "js": ["common"], > "css": ["common"] > }, > "chart": { > "js": ["d3.min", "vega", "VizGrammar.min"], > "css": ["line-chart"] > } > > *existing config.json* > > "common-libs" : ["wso2gadgets","chart-utils"], > "chart-libs" : ["d3.min","vega","VizGrammar.min"] > > I think this model is cleaner and intuitive than the exiting model. > AFAIK existing wizard is only used for IOT analytics. If there are no > concerns from them shall we move to this new model? > > @ Suho, Dunith : WDYT ? Will this incur lot of changes from IOT side? > Appreciate your input. > > Thanks, > Tanya > > -- > Tanya Madurapperuma > > Senior Software Engineer, > WSO2 Inc. : wso2.com > Mobile : +94718184439 > Blog : http://tanyamadurapperuma.blogspot.com >
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
