> Basically, organization of the libs could not really be any /worse/ > than it is now (e.g. I'm constantly checking ggee, hcs, moonlib and > zexy to find various OS and filesystem externals I need), so I'm > basically proposing the same thing you are, but approached as follows: > * Lazy consensus on a directory structure (I think we were already > making very nice progress on that in the "Proposals for object > categories" thread before it went off track : ) )
I can start organising the info in a wiki page later in the day. I guess this is point where we all agreed, we should try to move in the direction of a structured pd-ext? > * Creation of a branch of SVN with the directory structure in place > * Everyone works together to shuffle the many libs into the new structure > * We each claim a domain we'd like to maintain > * And then, finally, the maintainer (with help from consenting > developers where necessary) begin to rewrite the objects in that > category to have a consistent interface. is the consistent interface really necessary? there was already some discussion about the layout for the pddp project (am I right?), maybe elements from there could be taken? or maybe it's enough to provide a general template with guidelines to be followed, in case the developer wants the objects to become part of pd-ext? f.e., I have a consistent approach to the documentation of my abstractions - of course I can use another graphical template, but that might open lots of unecessary discussions: "why these colors", "why this layout", "why so many graphics and not only text", ..... But I think that in general it should be stressed that objects should be stable and properly documented. > And of course this does not need to be a mandate - if a developer > would rather keep all his/her stuff together, that's fine. And, there > will always be exceptions like rtc-lib or sigpack that shouldn't > really be split up. shouldn't they really? depends on what you're talking about - rtc, vasp, etc. are very cohese libs, that anyway don't go much outside their domains - their developers even made that separation clear, by putting other externals available elsewhere. they could easily go to /control/rtc or /control/array/vasp or etc. But for not so tight lib-packages, is it that bad to separate objects, as long as they're all available on path? > But, on the other side, I'm assuming there are many developers that > would be more than happy to move their code into common categories - > at the very least including myself, João and Cyrille, and only haven't > done so because the structure did not exist. And personally I'd be > just as willing to adapt the interfaces of my abstractions to a > category-defined standard, but once again, none exists now to adapt > to. I have no problem in structuring my abstractions (I can't code), but my "lib" is probably one of the most simple ones. _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
