On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:09 AM, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Ok, if there was a mainly flat structure what are your thoughts on >>> then having at least one folder named something like "getting started" >>> that groups some introductory samples to show new users how to get >>> going with Tuscany so they aren't just confronted with a single folder >>> with dozens of samples and not knowing where to begin? >>> >>> ...ant >>> >> >> But then, we have the "Store getting started guide" on the website, >> and currently store is listed at applications... but your suggestion >> looks better, the less sub-folders the better, at least to my personal >> preference > > Would a different name then alleviate the store guide issue - "first > steps", "introduction", "Look here first" ...? > >> preference which you guys shouldn't care much for this sample >> structure issue (at least for now) :). > > It would be good for users and the devs making these changes if we > could agree a structure everyone can live with now and then not have > to keep fiddling with it. Users aren't going to want samples moving > around over releases, and it takes quite a bit of work moving to get > the svn history, doc, build and release process all updated and > working correctly so if the "(at least for now)" comment means you > have something you're saving for later then now might be a better time > to comment. > > ...ant >
With a single flat folder structure it's very hard to distinguish between The samples I should look at first The contributions demonstrating particular features of SCA The launchers that demonstrate different ways of starting contributions Other more fully formed applications that are not focused on particular features I'm very comfortable with the small number of sub directories we have now. Perhaps with the exception of the particular issue being discussed of the potential confusion caused by sca-features and tuscany-features. If that is solved by having a single sub-directory to hold all of the feature contributions I'd be happy with that. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
