Mark Hindess wrote:
On 15 May 2006 at 16:14, "Andrey Chernyshev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I think using "src/main" and "src/test" to group our implementation
and test code was a convention we agreed on a while back. Personally
I dont have any problem with it, but it's something we can look at again
The current layout is just fine with me as well, in general. I just
thought that, once a big movement over a filesystem starts, it could
be a good chance to remove a few extra levels, in case we find them
redundant. If we don't think they are redundant, then let them leave
as they are.
modules/text/src/main/native/text/
modules/text/src/main/native/unicode/
I think this agrees with what you were saying - please let me know if
I've misunderstood!
Actually I thought of having the BidiWrapper.c, for example, directly
under the modules/text/src/main/native dir (if not considering
various OSes and platforms at this time:)). Since we already have a
'text' directory once in the beginning of the path, it may probably
look a bit excessive to repeat it once again at the end.
>From the perspective of that single file/module, then what you say might
be reasonable. But I think it would be nice to have consistency between
modules so that we can share common functionality between build files.
Agreed - I think we should keep a consistent layout of the source across
modules. It also keeps
the source directly in a directory that matches the name of the library
it will be used to build.
Regards,
Mark.
--
Oliver Deakin
IBM United Kingdom Limited
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
