I like the (1) structure. Because from stonhenge we are demonstrating the interoperability. What we are encouraging is developing different components of the same applications with different technologies. Rather than choosing a technology for the entire application ? Isn't it ?
So I am +1 for (1) . -Manjula. On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 16:48 +0530, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar wrote: > Hi, > > If we can decide on a folder structure for trunk, we can start move the code > from "contrib" and start to do the improvements. > > We can organize the folder structure in two ways. > > (1) Organize based on components and then on framework > E.g: trunk/stocktrader/ > | > +-business_service > | | > | +- dotnet > | | > | +- java > | | > | +- axis2 > | | > | +- PHP > | > +-order_processor > | > +-dotnet > | > +-java > > > (2) Organize based on framework and then on component > E.g: trunk/stocktrader/ > | > +-dotnet > | | > | +- business_service > | | > | +- order_processor > | | > | +- trader_client > | > +-Java > | | > | +-business_service > | | > | +-order_processor > | > +-axis2 > | > +-business_service > | > +-order_processor > > Which one do you think is the better approach? IMHO, (2) is better because > when we have another application "AppXYZ", we still can have same folder > structure (first based on framework level and then on application specific > component level). Also, people are interested in how to implement using a > framework rather than how a component is implemented in different > frameworks. WDYT? > > Since we are going to have code from Axis2, CXF and Metro, and all of them > are written in Java, we can identify common code and keep it inside "java" > and move framework specific code inside respective frameworks. i.e we can > have "axis2", "cxf", "metro" folders and all of them can use jar from "java" > folder. > > Thoughts? > > Regards, > Shankar > >
