Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Bob Harner schrieb:
On 8/12/07, Jörn Nettingsmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi everyone!
currently, our modules are organized in
modules-core (elementary functionality, must not depend on other modules
outside this tree),
modules (standard functionality, getting quite crowded),
modules-optional (currently unused), and
modules-legacy (modules that don't do stuff as it should be done in 2.0).
i'd like to suggest splitting the existing "modules" directory into
modules-editors (all editors and editor helper modules),
modules-resourcetypes (all resource type modules), and
modules (the rest),
to make it a little easier for new users looking for examples to learn from.
-.5 ... it seems to me that you'd be introducing a second means of
dividing up the modules without a clear rule to go on. Then in the
future it might seem that yet other groupings of modules should be
devised. I don't mind a long list of standard modules, really. If
you do want to reorganize the standard modules then maybe
subdirectories (standard/editors/) would make more sense. But then I
don't think that is worth the cost of the change either.
I agree to Bob. I don't think we should invest our precious time to
discuss the module grouping, at least not before 2.0 is out.
And I also don't mind a long module list.
So, -0.5 from me to.
point taken.
but what cost do you anticipate? iiuc, it's just a matter of adding
those paths to build.properties and be done with it. or is there more
work involved?
anyway, since you're not convinced, let's leave it for now.
but how about modules-optional and modules-legacy?
regards,
jörn
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
