Andrew Borley wrote:
[snip]
I think we use our samples to demonstrate different ways of working -
have
the Calculator be deployed in a single directory and have the BigBank
show
the use of multiple directories.
So perhaps have configuration, packages/account and packages/client
directories under the root directory? What do you think?
Andy
Andy, where would you place the two composites files describing the
calculator implementation and component?
Just to recap, here's what we had in M1:
subsystems/
CalculatorSubsystem/
CalculatorSubsystem.composite
BigBankSubsystem/
BigBankSubsystem.composite
modules/
CalculatorModule/
CalculatorModule.module
Accounts/
Accounts.composite
I am proposing something like this:
configuration/
sample.calculator.composite
bigbank.composite
packages/
calculator/
calculator.composite
bigbank.account/
bigbank.account.composite
bigbank.client/
bigbank.client.composite
The configuration directory contains the composites "included" in your
system, the packages directory contains implementations (composites or
other things).
And here's another option:
system.composite file ... containing
<include name=sample.calculator.composite/>
<include name=bigbank.composite/>
and a more free form distribution for the other artifacts:
sample.calculator.composite
bigbank.composite
calculator/
calculator.composite
bigbank.account/
bigbank.account.composite
bigbank.client/
bigbank.client.composite
This would provide less guidance to our users but maybe more
flexibility. They would have to edit this central system.composite file
instead of just placing files in a well known folder.
I'm OK with both the folder structure option or the cenral composite
file option. I suggest we start experimenting with a simple scheme that
you guys are comfortable and evolve it over time as we implement more
scenarios. What do you think?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
