What do you think is the best way to structure folders in a big
Cairngorm Application?
I'll give you two scenarios.
SCENARIO 1
==========
In this Scenario the application is defined by the Cairngorm structure
and I use Use-Case-subfolders* in the commands, views and VOs for each Use Case.
+ business
UseCase1Service.as
UseCase2Service.as
+ commands
+ useCase1*
UseCase1Command1.as
UseCase1Command2.as
+ useCase2*
UseCase2Command1.as
UseCase2Command2.as
+ control
UseCase1Control.as
UseCase2Control.as
+ model
UseCase1ModelLocator.as
UseCase2ModelLocator.as
+ view
+ useCase1*
UseCase1View1.mxml
UseCase1View2.mxml
+ useCase2*
UseCase2View1.mxml
useCase2View2.mxml
+ vo
+ useCase1*
UseCase1VO1.as
UseCase1VO2.as
+ useCase2*
useCase1VO1.as
UseCase1VO2.as
In the structure above, I use Use-Case-subfolders* for commands, view and vo.
It's necessary Use-Case-subfolders only for commands, views and VOs, because
I'll probably have only one service/control/model by Use Case.
SCENARIO 2
==========
In this scenario the application is defined by the Use Case structure
and I use Cairngorm-subfolders* for each Use Case
+ useCase1
+ business*
UseCase1Service.as
+ commands*
UseCase1Command1.as
UseCase1Command2.as
+control*
UseCase1Control.as
+ model*
UseCase1ModelLocator.as
+ view*
UseCase1View1.as
UseCase1View2.as
+ vo*
UseCase1VO1.as
UseCase1VO2.as
+ useCase2
+ business*
UseCase2Service.as
+ commands*
UseCase2Command1.as
UseCase2Command2.as
+ control*
UseCase2Control.as
+ model*
UseCase2ModelLocator.as
+ view*
UseCase2View1.as
UseCase2View2.as
+ vo*
UseCase2VO1.as
UseCase2VO2.as
I the structure above, I use Cairngorm-subfolders* for each Use Case.
CONSIDERATIONS
==============
SCENARIO 1
In my opinion this Scenario looks more coherent, but there is one
inconvenience.
Generally I'll be working with only one Use Case. But imagine you are editing
"useCase1VO1.as" and now you need to open "UseCase1Command1.as". Do you know
What I mean? If you have many Use Cases it can be laborious because of the
scroll in your structure. If you use Eclipse you can figure out this by
defining Working Sets.
SCENARIO 2
At a first look this structure seems simpler. But I don't like it because
one Cairngorm Structure by Use Case makes me fell like If I have one
Cairngorm by Use Case. Since Cairngorm is for complex applications
I don't think it should be entirely structured for a simple Use Case.
What do you think? Do you know another way to organize big Cairngorm
Applications?
Thanks
Beck Novaes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
