Thanks for bringing this up again. I like the changes, but I think we should consider waiting till after the 1.5 release to implement them. My reasoning for this is that it will require another change to the build scripts and we should consider how it will impact the users of the build. What do you think?
Thanks Justin On Feb 18, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Cheetham, Anastasia <[email protected]> wrote: > > At a Community Workshop on Nov. 20, 2013, we discussed > > 1) rearranging the Infusion folder hierarchy > (http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-5217), and > 2) creating instructional demos to serve alongside the "showcase" demos > (http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-5215) > > The proposed hierarchy is document on FLUID-5215 and is shown below. Does > anyone have an thoughts, questions, comments or concerns about this proposed > hierarchy? > > > > src > framework > components > lib > module > demos > showcase > instructional > integration <- to be destroyed > standalone > tests > > > For the demos/instructional folder, the hierarchy should mirror, as much as > reasonable, the hierarchy of the source folder. In general: > > demos/instructional > framework > core > prefs > renderer > components > componentX > shared > css > shared.css > html > shared.html > js > shared.js > demoX > css > file.css > html > file.html > js > file.js > demoY > css > file.css > html > file.html > js > file.js > componentY > etc > > > -- > Anastasia Cheetham Inclusive Design Research Centre > [email protected] Inclusive Design Institute > OCAD University > > _______________________________________________________ > fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, > see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work _______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
