Hi, On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 6:11 AM Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> wrote:
> Justin Edelson wrote > > > > I guess I'm not really understanding the advantage of this flat list > (which > > wouldn't be a single flat list, but multiple flat lists). What is the the > > difference between > > > > /apps/myco/components/bar > > /libs/myco/components/bar > > > > and > > > > /foo/apps/myco:components:bar > > /foo/libs/myco:components:bar > > > With /foo you have resource type resources only, nothing else, no > clutter. It is true, that having /foo/apps and /foo/libs spoils the > whole thing and my initial idea was actually to just have > /foo/resourcetypehierarchy - no overlays for the resource type > hierarchy. But that would go against or overlay principle. > In your mind, does /foo contain scripts inside the resource type resources? > > Maybe my idea is not the best, that's why it is an RT :) But I strongly > believe that we should move the hierarchy definition out of the /libs, > /apps bags of random stuff. I'm still not 100% sure I understand the problem, but it sounds to me like the better solution would be to move the random stuff out of /libs and /apps :) Unless I'm missing something (which is very possible), nothing would stop this same "random stuff" from showing up in /foo/libs and /foo/apps. It sounds like we need something like FHS ( http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/index.html). For better or worse, however, I think such a document needs to really encompass the scope of AEM (and possibly other downstream platforms based on Sling) to be truly meaningful. Regards, Justin > > Regards > Carsten > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > cziege...@apache.org >
