OK, so if going deeper or the like works, then I'll go with something like that. It occurs to me that there might not be the same turn of phrase in olther languages, so I'm going to avoid the potential ambuiguity for members of the community whose first language is not English and use "learning-more".
Kelvin. On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
