Simon L made the following comment on TUSCANY-3508 (see [1]):
Do we need the binary version of the travel sample distribution? It seems
> that people interested in the sample would want to look at the source code.
> Just running it is not very interesting as, as is often the way with samples,
> it doesn't really do anything useful in its own right.
I don't think we need the binary distribution as a separately released artifact.
However I do think we need to retain the distribution directory within the
sample source tree so that people can build the binary distribution for
themselves and see what the executable binary artifacts look like.
This approach would suggest that using the name "distribution" for this
directory might not be ideal. Other possibilities for this directory name
are "binaries", "executables", "runtime", ???
Of the above options I would have a slight preference for "binaries".
Thoughts, other suggestions?
Simon
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3508?focusedCommentId=12847769&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12847769
