> -----Original Message-----
> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:06 PM
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: [RT] Making sense of our repositories
>
> I would like to get us to a place where our repositories make sense, and
> have a specific purpose. We currently have the following set of
> repositories:
[snip]
I'm just a user who makes a lot of noise and doesn't contribute enough
patches, but I thought I'd chime in on this one because I've recently had to
explain avalon's cvs structure to a couple people, including my own
development team (who will now be using Avalon as our central application
framework, w00t!).
The way I see avalon (and I imagine other users do too) is that it's made up
of three things:
1. Framework
2. Containers
3. Components
So it seems to me that the cvs structure should reflect that as much as
possible and thankfully that seems to be the direction the project is
headed. The minimal set of repositories could probably be something like
this:
avalon
(
/framework
/containers [?] <-- would hold fortress, phoenix, merlin
/ext <-- the core Excalibur components Berin mentioned
)
avalon-components <-- remaining excalibur and cornerstone components
avalon-sandbox <-- we all need a sandbox to play in
avalon-site (no way this could end up in avalon/site ?)
My only other thought would be to separate out avalon/containers to a
separate repository called avalon-containers, that way the framework is by
itself, but either works.
The important thing to me is to point out that everything should be able to
fall into one of the three categories mentioned above.
Last point is that the idea of specifying some excalibur components
(instrument, lifecycle) as extensions of the core framework makes me a
little nervous. I can understand why they would be thus considered, but it
opens up arguments for what counts as an extension and what's just a really
useful component. If a container (or most containers) depends on a
component, is it an extension then? If assembly ever makes it out of the
sandbox (and I sure hope it will) is it an extension? If you have all these
extensions, then why aren't they just part of the framework itself?
I'm not saying defining standard extensions isn't good, it's just making
sure that there's a clear definition of what an extension component is and
what's just a component. Last thing you want is avalon/ext (or whatever) to
become another avalon-excalibur when you just got rid of the old one.
Anyway, that's my $0.02
jaaron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
