Richard S. Hall wrote:
Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
I like this, so +1.
It's not a showstopper, but since everything is bundles, having
'std-bundles' and 'bundles' next to framework is redundant and misses
out on describing the intent. Perhaps 'framework', 'standard', and
'optional'?
I don't have any issues with the overall structure, but I don't really
like std-bundles/bundles or standard/optional. Although if I had to
choose, I would choose the former, because the latter doesn't really
make sense since all bundles are optional, by definition.
My naming suggestions assumed people cared about the distinction between
standard and non-standard bundles. And by standard and
non-standard/optional I was thinking relative to the R4 spec. We need
to make it clear to people who care about only implementing standards
which bundles are R4 and which are Apache. But, if doco is good enough
for that then a single 'bundles' folder makes sense. I don't care
strongly about whether there's a distinction or not, just that in the
case of having the distinction, the folder names should be descriptive
of what that distinction is. The ASF makes a similar distinction by
putting ASF projects in the Incubator vs. TLP and we'll do something
similar with the 'sandbox'.
Again, I'm fine with a single 'bundles' folder if that distinction makes
no sense.
Enrique
I am not sure why we are drawing a major distinction between bundles
implementing standard services and bundles implementing non-standard
services...it seems not that important to me. Bundle documentation
should just say what standards if any it implement. What happens if
Apache starts defining "standard services"? Do those go in the
'std-bundles' or 'bundles' directory?
In my opinion, I think just a single 'bundle' directory makes sense.
-> richard
