On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:19 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Over on the 2.0 themes thread we've said we'd look at separating the core > modules from other extension modules, what would this look like? > > As an initial strawman to discuss how about separate folders for each group > of related modules including all their tests and samples. So there could be > a core folder that would contain most of the minimal modules we're currently > bringing in stage 1 along with all the related itests, vtests and samples > relating to those, a webservices folder which has all the binding.ws and > wsdl related modules, and folders for each other extension type or other > sets of related modules we might have. > > Although like that the samples are grouped within their related extension > folder that doesnt necessarily mean thats how they need to be structured in > the binary distributions we make. That build structure makes it easier to > develop and build functional areas, in the distribution we could move them > about wherever we like to make it easy for users. > > Is this the type of thing others are thinking of? > > ...ant > > > I was certainly what I had in mind when I wrote that line. I wasn't thinking that this related to any particular distribution structure but just as a crutch for the newcomer to the project. I know this isn't a popular proposal (from mail list exchanges from way back). IIRC the project used to be something like this a long time ago and the project moved away from it. So I guess I'm open minded, welcome a bit of a discussion about it and am keen to see what happens. If there is no concensus then I guess what we have is at least simple even if it's not easy to understand. If people feel that we must stay with the flat structure can we consider adopting some more meaningful module naming scheme in order to; 1/ disitinguish those modules that are loaded as extensions and those that aren't 2/ consistently associate samples and itests with the function they are focused on. Simon
