On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Kelvin Goodson <[email protected]> wrote: > That would mean getting started would be hidden away in a sub folder. Maybe > the folder could have a more meaningful name in relation to the getting > started folder. Something like "going deeper". > > Kelvin > > On 22 Sep 2010, at 22:33, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:20 PM, kelvin goodson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> be good. There seems to be consensus that a flatter structure would >>> be preferable, so I plan to move the contents of tuscany-features into >>> the " directory >> >> If thats what happens do we even need the "sca-features" directory at >> all and instead just have everything in there be in the top samples >> folder. That might be closer to what Luciano was asking for, and i >> have to say the folder name "sca-features" doesn't mean much to me. >> >> ...ant >
Yeah, I don't think it makes sense to have some things in sub directories and some things at the top level. The things in sca-features are contributions. So "going-deeper" works for me or "contributions" or "sca-contributions" or "extension-contributions" or any other name that indicates that it contains contributions demonstrating point features of the Tuscany runtime. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
