On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Florian MOGA <moga....@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe having those differentiated will make people aware of the relation > between sca and tuscany. 'sca-features' and 'sca-extensions' try to make > this distinction. Probably 'sca-features' and 'tuscany-features' would be > best for us but they are confusing for somebody that is just starting to > check tuscany out. In conclusion, we just need to find 2 two self-explaining > names. Let's have a day or two for brainstorming that. Feel free to suggest > names. > To sum it up, here are some options we have now: > sca-features / sca-extensions > sca-features / tuscany-features > sca-features / sca-additions > sca-features / sca-addons > sca-features / sca-tuscany-addons > sca-spec-features / sca-non-spec-features > sca-spec-features / sca-spec-extensions (here extensions can be understood > as xep-s are for rfc-s...) >
Just my 0.00002 c If you guys, very experienced with the contents of the samples are having a hard time on classifying these samples, the users that are trying to understand Tuscany will have a much more hard time to find a sample particularly if we go with structure in [1]. Just have this in mind when you continue with the work, and maybe richer documentation explaining and grouping the samples are more valuable then a multilevel folder structure. [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sandbox/samples/ -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
