Yes possibly folders, and more likely just file names. For example:
service-library/
├── ofbiz-component.xml
└── services
├── accounting-services.xml
├── content-services.xml
├── humanres-services.xml
├── manufacturing-services.xml
├── marketing-services.xml
├── order-services.xml
├── party-services.xml
├── product-services.xml
├── shipment-services.xml
└── workeffort-services.xml
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Paul Foxworthy <p...@cohsoft.com.au> wrote:
> On 7 March 2018 at 16:57, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Yeah I am proposing one big component to house all services. The reason is
>> that it makes no sense in separating them because they are tightly coupled
>> and depend on each other heavily (because they share the full data model)
>>
>> As I mentioned in my first email, we can perhaps create a new component and
>> call it "service-library". Inside this component we follow a similar
>> pattern to the datamodel component in organizing the files.
>>
>> To me the big win out of this move is that all the complexity we have right
>> now in figuring out the dependencies between components almost completely
>> goes away. Remember that big spaghetti diagram in the wiki for component
>> dependencies? We get rid of that.
>>
>> Did I understand your question correctly and WDYT?
>>
>
> You did understand correctly and I think I agree.
>
> Would there be folders for human understanding and some organisation, but
> without them defining separate components?
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul Foxworthy
>
> --
> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
> PO Box 2773
> Cheltenham Vic 3192
> Australia
>
> Phone: +61 3 9585 6788
> Web: http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
> Email: i...@coherentsoftware.com.au
