If I understand correctly, that makes the webapps folder a subcategory of
getting-started.
Just to sum it up, the new structure will be something like:

+ getting-started/

- helloworld-*
+ webapps

- helloworld-*

+ running-tuscany

- launcher-*

+ sca-features

- implementation-*
- binding-*

+ applications

- store-*
- calculator-*

Where do the dosgi-* samples fit in (sca-features of applications)? What
about the logging-scribe sample?

This looks like a really intuitive structure, also not too much
fragmentation but enough to make a clean separation. Are we considering
promoting some itests to samples? There are some really good callback-api
samples (that's what i've checked out some time ago) in the itest folder.


On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]>wrote:

> >
> > I agree about it being a bit disorganized and that makes it hard to
> > know where to start, there's so much stuff in the samples folder and
> > its all doing different types of things. I think i'd like to move all
> > the helloworld type things into a sub folder so as to separate it out
> > from the more complex stuff and where appropriate try to build on each
> > other eg so the binding.ws contribution reuses one of the helloworld
> > contributions etc. Something like this sort of layout:
> >
> > samples\GettingStarted
> >  README.txt gives a step by step guide to using the things below
> >  contributions/
> >           - helloworld
> >           - helloworld-spring
> >           - helloworld-bpel
> >           - composites
> >           - binding.ws
> >           - binding.jms
> >           - binding.http
> >           - etc
> >    runningTuscany/
> >           - Basic Java SE
> >           - WebApp embedded
> >           - WebApp With Contributions
> >           - OSGi
> >           - Shell
> >           - SCAClient API
> >           - Domain
> >
> >   ...ant
> >
>
> Sub-directories sounds like a good direction. I wonder whether we
> should separate the "GettingStarted" type samples such as helloworlds
> etc. from the "SCAFeatures" type samples which demonstrate individual
> extensions, or other features of the SCA sepcifications, at work.
>
> If we can find opportunities when samples share basic artifacts and
> build on one another that, again, sounds like a good idea. It reduces
> the amount the new user has to lear in order to understand what SCA is
> about.
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>

Reply via email to