application/project
> On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Sterling Hughes <sterl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/24/16 1:06 PM, aditi hilbert wrote:
>> Sorry to pipe up late and I know how involved the changes are but I need to
>> understand the reasoning better to be able to document properly.
>>
>> For the most part I get the changes and agree with them. The only one that I
>> am struggling with is “app” instead of “nest”. The term “application"
>> doesn’t quite convey the sense of a collection (repo) even though that’s
>> what it is (our larva, tadpole etc.). And the packages in such a nest
>> (legacy term) could be composed to enable different applications in the real
>> world from a user perspective. I am wondering whether “workspace” or “app
>> container” or simply “repo" conveys the meaning better.
>>
>
> I really didn't like "repo" or "repository" -- it made sense to me, but
> people got confused by git repository vs our repository.
>
> "workspace" is good too, and I'm happy to change it if people prefer that. I
> did application because that was the more common term (ruby on rails, node,
> etc.) That said, this is kinda a different space.
>
> For context, an application is where you keep all of your packages for a
> class of device. Projects are where the main() function resides, and specify
> the set of linked packages that compose software that gets built. So think
> of project as the top level src/ directory, and an application as a
> combination of src/ and any linked libraries.
>
> I'd really be interested in other people's thoughts here, what makes more
> sense to you:
>
> [ ] workspace/application
> [ ] application/project
>
> Sterling
>
