What are the main issue we are trying to solve with sample folder structure ? I believe that, by having more granular distributions, the amount of samples in a given distribution will be very small, and very aligned with the purpose of the distribution.
Also note that in the past, our svn was structured as a folder hierarchy which cause confusion to users and new-developers, hence we moved to a flat module structure. Just my $0.02 On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
