On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:14 AM, ant elder wrote:
On 10/5/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think organizing the samples like this is a good idea. I'd suggest
going one step further and place each sample with the implementation
of the service that it is illustrating. That way it becomes much
easier to tag/release each module on its own.
I'm not sure I follow "place each sample with the implementation of
the
service that it is illustrating" , do you mean something like:
samples/helloworld/java
samples/helloworld/javascript
samples/calculator/java
samples/calculator/javascript
Or do you mean include them with the extension so the JavaScript
folder
would include samples/helloworld and samples/calculator? I didn't
think Jim
liked this way, from the previous thread - "In other words, each
sample
project should not be a sibling to the project containing extension
code but
should go under a samples folder in separate projects".
I was thinking samples for particular extensions would go under the
particular extension's directory. For samples that used multiple
extensions, they would go under the master samples folder. I liked
what was done with the calculator where stuff is shared between
projects (component reuse) so if that structuring won't work for re-
use I would be fine with what Ant just outlined. My preference,
though, would be to group samples with individual extensions.
Jim
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
