On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Simon Laws >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Related to the Samples thread [1] which is about how the samples work >>>>> internally we can also consider how they get included in a distribution >>>>> and >>>>> thats come up in the distribution thread [2]. The main points there would >>>>> be >>>>> that the samples are changed from all being in a single flat samples >>>>> folder >>>>> to be grouped into sub folders, and that the sample names are rearranged >>>>> to >>>>> point out their main reason for being. >>>>> >>>>> Adding some structure seems to me like a huge improvement to the >>>>> existing layout, there are so many samples now its become too hard and >>>>> confusing to see whats what. However this has come up before and I'm not >>>>> sure everyone agrees so before we spend much time does anyone want to >>>>> raise >>>>> any concerns about a change like this? >>>>> >>>>> ...ant >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/yofc6tptydeszty6 >>>>> [2] http://apache.markmail.org/message/uzmcywrpjctnlffy >>>>> >>>> >>>> We'll I'm for It but I should point out I haven't done anything other >>>> than create some new samples with new names and updated the distro config >>>> to >>>> group samples to get a feel for how it looks. The samples folder itself is >>>> still flat and IMHO I can probably live with that as long as we take time >>>> to >>>> review the naming. >>>> >>>> Simon >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean, you say you're all for it (Adding some >>> structure) but also that the samples folder itself is still flat? How would >>> that work? >>> >>> ...ant >>> >>> >> >> Locally I have a flat samples folder from svn and a structured samples >> folder in the distribution. Just configuration in the distro build makes >> this work. > > > What are the advantages of doing it that way? If we agree some structure in > the distribution is useful it will be simpler to have svn match that wont > it? > > ...ant > > > The immediate advantage was that I could experiment without reorganizing svn. We haven't agreed that things should be grouped or if they are how that grouping should occur . I'm experimenting in order to inform my opinion. >From our previous discussion my current position is that I'd like to have samples focus on demonstring the behaviour of a particular extension and hence my previous comments about sample naming. Doesn't mean that samples won't use many SCA extensions just that the focus would be on one particular feature, for example, implementation-java-calculator binding-ws-calulator host-webapp-calculator. Both binding-ws-calculator and implementation-webapp-calculator use implementation.java of course but that's not the focus of the sample or the documentation that supports the sample. Leading on from this I was starting to group samples as I mentioned previously and, with my experiment being based on where the distro stands at the moment + the addition of a webapp group, it happened to look like this this time round; core implementation-java-calculator webservices binding-ws-calculator webapp host-webbapp-calculator However based on our discussion on the distribution thread I've dropped this actual structuring as that's not particularly what I'm interested in just now. I'm actually trying to get the ant scripts to run more automatically so the reason I came up with new tests names was so that I had some new tests where I could play with the ant script, pom files etc. I haven't posted anything yet but I will do shortly on a separate sample testing thread. All this is just me thinkng aloud and is all up for discussion. I haven't checked any changes in. I will probably check in my experimental samples so I don't loose them. Simon
