+1 for option 2 -----Original Message----- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: stonehenge trunk folder structure
+1 for option 2 (platform-specific first, components next). Sanjiva. Dimuthu Gamage wrote: > + 1 for the #2. Whoever want to try it will check out codes for some > specific platforms (most probably not all of them), so it is better place > them in platform wise. > > Thanks > Dimuthu > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Harold Carr <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Whichever way makes it easier to build and maintain a particular version >> (e.g., Java/Metro) is what I would go for. Common patterns would suggest #2 >> would be better in that regard. >> >> It is true that we are demonstrating interop, so having each service >> separate would emphasize that, but at the cost of a more complicated >> platform-specific build structure. >> >> Regards, >> H >> >> >> Danushka Menikkumbura wrote: >> >>> >>> Also, people are interested in how to implement using a >>>>> framework rather than how a component is implemented in different >>>>> frameworks. WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> +1. >>> On the other hand, having component developed using the same framework in >>> one place, will make it easy to maintain. For an example, if you want to >>> have a master build for dotnet apps, having them under one directory will >>> really help. >>> >>> So, I am +1 for [2] >>> >>> Danushka >>> >>> > > -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/ Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/ Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
