On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Florian MOGA <[email protected]> wrote: >> I believe having those differentiated will make people aware of the relation >> between sca and tuscany. 'sca-features' and 'sca-extensions' try to make >> this distinction. Probably 'sca-features' and 'tuscany-features' would be >> best for us but they are confusing for somebody that is just starting to >> check tuscany out. In conclusion, we just need to find 2 two self-explaining >> names. Let's have a day or two for brainstorming that. Feel free to suggest >> names. >> To sum it up, here are some options we have now: >> sca-features / sca-extensions >> sca-features / tuscany-features >> sca-features / sca-additions >> sca-features / sca-addons >> sca-features / sca-tuscany-addons >> sca-spec-features / sca-non-spec-features >> sca-spec-features / sca-spec-extensions (here extensions can be understood >> as xep-s are for rfc-s...) >> > > > Just my 0.00002 c > > If you guys, very experienced with the contents of the samples are > having a hard time on classifying these samples, the users that are > trying to understand Tuscany will have a much more hard time to find a > sample particularly if we go with structure in [1]. Just have this in > mind when you continue with the work, and maybe richer documentation > explaining and grouping the samples are more valuable then a > multilevel folder structure. > > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sandbox/samples/ >
I'm having some trouble parsing your comments Luciano. You specifically point at the arrangement in the sandbox but have you looked in trunk recently, which has already changed to have a multilevel folder structure. The sandbox area is just tinkering with the folder names and grouping. ...ant
