You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2009/01/22 09:43:51 UTC
Samples structure
Related to the Samples thread [1] which is about how the samples work
internally we can also consider how they get included in a distribution and
thats come up in the distribution thread [2]. The main points there would be
that the samples are changed from all being in a single flat samples folder
to be grouped into sub folders, and that the sample names are rearranged to
point out their main reason for being.
Adding some structure seems to me like a huge improvement to the existing
layout, there are so many samples now its become too hard and confusing to
see whats what. However this has come up before and I'm not sure everyone
agrees so before we spend much time does anyone want to raise any concerns
about a change like this?
...ant
[1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/yofc6tptydeszty6
[2] http://apache.markmail.org/message/uzmcywrpjctnlffy
Re: Samples structure
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> What are the main issue we are trying to solve with sample folder
> structure ?
One thing is to make the high level purpose of what each sample is for more
obvious to a new user looking at Tuscany for the first time.
> I believe that, by having more granular distributions, the
> amount of samples in a given distribution will be very small, and very
> aligned with the purpose of the distribution.
>
I don't think the granular distributions would help so much here (not that
we've even agreed to have them yet), as I expect vastly most people are
going to just use an "all" distribution.
>
> Also note that in the past, our svn was structured as a folder
> hierarchy which cause confusion to users and new-developers, hence we
> moved to a flat module structure.
>
>
>From my memory thats not what the problem was and people actually liked the
clarity the hierarchy gave, the problem was with the weird way the old
Tuscany was set up and released continually caused various build problems,
that shouldn't be any problem now with the way we do things.
...ant
Re: Samples structure
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
I will be happy with whatever form that helps the users quickly identify/understand what a sample does.
Thanks,
Raymond
From: Simon Laws
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 4:20 AM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: Samples structure
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
What are the main issue we are trying to solve with sample folder
structure ? I believe that, by having more granular distributions, the
amount of samples in a given distribution will be very small, and very
aligned with the purpose of the distribution.
Also note that in the past, our svn was structured as a folder
hierarchy which cause confusion to users and new-developers, hence we
moved to a flat module structure.
Hi Luciano
Let's not get too caught up in the word structure. Maybe I was trying to be too helpful in my previous post by explaining that I had started looking at physical folder structure but had backed that out based on the discussions on this list. However I think that we do need to "structure" the samples so that our users can identify their purpose more easily than is the case with the 1.x release. So let me focus the mind and the conversation a little. What I'm doing is renaming samples to have the following the form...
implementation-java-calculator
binding-ws-calulator
host-webapp-calculator.
So that, in my opinion, it's clearer what extension or feature the sample is intended to demonstrate. I am not changing their location in svn.
Simon
Re: Samples structure
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> What are the main issue we are trying to solve with sample folder
> structure ? I believe that, by having more granular distributions, the
> amount of samples in a given distribution will be very small, and very
> aligned with the purpose of the distribution.
>
> Also note that in the past, our svn was structured as a folder
> hierarchy which cause confusion to users and new-developers, hence we
> moved to a flat module structure.
>
>
Hi Luciano
Let's not get too caught up in the word structure. Maybe I was trying to be
too helpful in my previous post by explaining that I had started looking at
physical folder structure but had backed that out based on the discussions
on this list. However I think that we do need to "structure" the samples so
that our users can identify their purpose more easily than is the case with
the 1.x release. So let me focus the mind and the conversation a little.
What I'm doing is renaming samples to have the following the form...
implementation-java-calculator
binding-ws-calulator
host-webapp-calculator.
So that, in my opinion, it's clearer what extension or feature the sample is
intended to demonstrate. I am not changing their location in svn.
Simon
Re: Samples structure
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
What are the main issue we are trying to solve with sample folder
structure ? I believe that, by having more granular distributions, the
amount of samples in a given distribution will be very small, and very
aligned with the purpose of the distribution.
Also note that in the past, our svn was structured as a folder
hierarchy which cause confusion to users and new-developers, hence we
moved to a flat module structure.
Just my $0.02
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Related to the Samples thread [1] which is about how the samples work
>>>>>> internally we can also consider how they get included in a distribution and
>>>>>> thats come up in the distribution thread [2]. The main points there would be
>>>>>> that the samples are changed from all being in a single flat samples folder
>>>>>> to be grouped into sub folders, and that the sample names are rearranged to
>>>>>> point out their main reason for being.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adding some structure seems to me like a huge improvement to the
>>>>>> existing layout, there are so many samples now its become too hard and
>>>>>> confusing to see whats what. However this has come up before and I'm not
>>>>>> sure everyone agrees so before we spend much time does anyone want to raise
>>>>>> any concerns about a change like this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/yofc6tptydeszty6
>>>>>> [2] http://apache.markmail.org/message/uzmcywrpjctnlffy
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll I'm for It but I should point out I haven't done anything other
>>>>> than create some new samples with new names and updated the distro config to
>>>>> group samples to get a feel for how it looks. The samples folder itself is
>>>>> still flat and IMHO I can probably live with that as long as we take time to
>>>>> review the naming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what you mean, you say you're all for it (Adding some
>>>> structure) but also that the samples folder itself is still flat? How would
>>>> that work?
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>
>>> Locally I have a flat samples folder from svn and a structured samples
>>> folder in the distribution. Just configuration in the distro build makes
>>> this work.
>>
>> What are the advantages of doing it that way? If we agree some structure
>> in the distribution is useful it will be simpler to have svn match that wont
>> it?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>>
>
> The immediate advantage was that I could experiment without reorganizing
> svn. We haven't agreed that things should be grouped or if they are how that
> grouping should occur . I'm experimenting in order to inform my opinion.
>
> From our previous discussion my current position is that I'd like to have
> samples focus on demonstring the behaviour of a particular extension and
> hence my previous comments about sample naming. Doesn't mean that samples
> won't use many SCA extensions just that the focus would be on one particular
> feature, for example,
>
> implementation-java-calculator
> binding-ws-calulator
> host-webapp-calculator.
>
> Both binding-ws-calculator and implementation-webapp-calculator use
> implementation.java of course but that's not the focus of the sample or the
> documentation that supports the sample.
>
> Leading on from this I was starting to group samples as I mentioned
> previously and, with my experiment being based on where the distro stands at
> the moment + the addition of a webapp group, it happened to look like this
> this time round;
>
> core
> implementation-java-calculator
> webservices
> binding-ws-calculator
> webapp
> host-webbapp-calculator
>
> However based on our discussion on the distribution thread I've dropped this
> actual structuring as that's not particularly what I'm interested in just
> now.
>
> I'm actually trying to get the ant scripts to run more automatically so the
> reason I came up with new tests names was so that I had some new tests where
> I could play with the ant script, pom files etc. I haven't posted anything
> yet but I will do shortly on a separate sample testing thread.
>
> All this is just me thinkng aloud and is all up for discussion. I haven't
> checked any changes in. I will probably check in my experimental samples so
> I don't loose them.
>
> Simon
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Samples structure
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Related to the Samples thread [1] which is about how the samples work
>>>>> internally we can also consider how they get included in a distribution and
>>>>> thats come up in the distribution thread [2]. The main points there would be
>>>>> that the samples are changed from all being in a single flat samples folder
>>>>> to be grouped into sub folders, and that the sample names are rearranged to
>>>>> point out their main reason for being.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding some structure seems to me like a huge improvement to the
>>>>> existing layout, there are so many samples now its become too hard and
>>>>> confusing to see whats what. However this has come up before and I'm not
>>>>> sure everyone agrees so before we spend much time does anyone want to raise
>>>>> any concerns about a change like this?
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/yofc6tptydeszty6
>>>>> [2] http://apache.markmail.org/message/uzmcywrpjctnlffy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll I'm for It but I should point out I haven't done anything other
>>>> than create some new samples with new names and updated the distro config to
>>>> group samples to get a feel for how it looks. The samples folder itself is
>>>> still flat and IMHO I can probably live with that as long as we take time to
>>>> review the naming.
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean, you say you're all for it (Adding some
>>> structure) but also that the samples folder itself is still flat? How would
>>> that work?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Locally I have a flat samples folder from svn and a structured samples
>> folder in the distribution. Just configuration in the distro build makes
>> this work.
>
>
> What are the advantages of doing it that way? If we agree some structure in
> the distribution is useful it will be simpler to have svn match that wont
> it?
>
> ...ant
>
>
>
The immediate advantage was that I could experiment without reorganizing
svn. We haven't agreed that things should be grouped or if they are how that
grouping should occur . I'm experimenting in order to inform my opinion.
>From our previous discussion my current position is that I'd like to have
samples focus on demonstring the behaviour of a particular extension and
hence my previous comments about sample naming. Doesn't mean that samples
won't use many SCA extensions just that the focus would be on one particular
feature, for example,
implementation-java-calculator
binding-ws-calulator
host-webapp-calculator.
Both binding-ws-calculator and implementation-webapp-calculator use
implementation.java of course but that's not the focus of the sample or the
documentation that supports the sample.
Leading on from this I was starting to group samples as I mentioned
previously and, with my experiment being based on where the distro stands at
the moment + the addition of a webapp group, it happened to look like this
this time round;
core
implementation-java-calculator
webservices
binding-ws-calculator
webapp
host-webbapp-calculator
However based on our discussion on the distribution thread I've dropped this
actual structuring as that's not particularly what I'm interested in just
now.
I'm actually trying to get the ant scripts to run more automatically so the
reason I came up with new tests names was so that I had some new tests where
I could play with the ant script, pom files etc. I haven't posted anything
yet but I will do shortly on a separate sample testing thread.
All this is just me thinkng aloud and is all up for discussion. I haven't
checked any changes in. I will probably check in my experimental samples so
I don't loose them.
Simon
Re: Samples structure
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Related to the Samples thread [1] which is about how the samples work
>>>> internally we can also consider how they get included in a distribution and
>>>> thats come up in the distribution thread [2]. The main points there would be
>>>> that the samples are changed from all being in a single flat samples folder
>>>> to be grouped into sub folders, and that the sample names are rearranged to
>>>> point out their main reason for being.
>>>>
>>>> Adding some structure seems to me like a huge improvement to the
>>>> existing layout, there are so many samples now its become too hard and
>>>> confusing to see whats what. However this has come up before and I'm not
>>>> sure everyone agrees so before we spend much time does anyone want to raise
>>>> any concerns about a change like this?
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/yofc6tptydeszty6
>>>> [2] http://apache.markmail.org/message/uzmcywrpjctnlffy
>>>>
>>>
>>> We'll I'm for It but I should point out I haven't done anything other
>>> than create some new samples with new names and updated the distro config to
>>> group samples to get a feel for how it looks. The samples folder itself is
>>> still flat and IMHO I can probably live with that as long as we take time to
>>> review the naming.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean, you say you're all for it (Adding some
>> structure) but also that the samples folder itself is still flat? How would
>> that work?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>>
>
> Locally I have a flat samples folder from svn and a structured samples
> folder in the distribution. Just configuration in the distro build makes
> this work.
What are the advantages of doing it that way? If we agree some structure in
the distribution is useful it will be simpler to have svn match that wont
it?
...ant
Re: Samples structure
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Related to the Samples thread [1] which is about how the samples work
>>> internally we can also consider how they get included in a distribution and
>>> thats come up in the distribution thread [2]. The main points there would be
>>> that the samples are changed from all being in a single flat samples folder
>>> to be grouped into sub folders, and that the sample names are rearranged to
>>> point out their main reason for being.
>>>
>>> Adding some structure seems to me like a huge improvement to the existing
>>> layout, there are so many samples now its become too hard and confusing to
>>> see whats what. However this has come up before and I'm not sure everyone
>>> agrees so before we spend much time does anyone want to raise any concerns
>>> about a change like this?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>> [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/yofc6tptydeszty6
>>> [2] http://apache.markmail.org/message/uzmcywrpjctnlffy
>>>
>>
>> We'll I'm for It but I should point out I haven't done anything other than
>> create some new samples with new names and updated the distro config to
>> group samples to get a feel for how it looks. The samples folder itself is
>> still flat and IMHO I can probably live with that as long as we take time to
>> review the naming.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean, you say you're all for it (Adding some
> structure) but also that the samples folder itself is still flat? How would
> that work?
>
> ...ant
>
>
Locally I have a flat samples folder from svn and a structured samples
folder in the distribution. Just configuration in the distro build makes
this work. I like the structure but based on our discussion on the
distribution thread I'm just backing that out locally so I can check in some
sample testing changes.
I just built the 2.x distro this morning and I see that Raymond has updated
it so that you get the individual manifests. I'm not going to make any other
structure suggestions about this now until we have looked at the different
ways we think a user will use it. I suggest we just all build the all distro
and iterate around it and see where is gets us. My current interest lies in
being able to test sample ant scripts automatically so I just need a distro
I can test against.
Simon
Re: Samples structure
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Related to the Samples thread [1] which is about how the samples work
>> internally we can also consider how they get included in a distribution and
>> thats come up in the distribution thread [2]. The main points there would be
>> that the samples are changed from all being in a single flat samples folder
>> to be grouped into sub folders, and that the sample names are rearranged to
>> point out their main reason for being.
>>
>> Adding some structure seems to me like a huge improvement to the existing
>> layout, there are so many samples now its become too hard and confusing to
>> see whats what. However this has come up before and I'm not sure everyone
>> agrees so before we spend much time does anyone want to raise any concerns
>> about a change like this?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/yofc6tptydeszty6
>> [2] http://apache.markmail.org/message/uzmcywrpjctnlffy
>>
>
> We'll I'm for It but I should point out I haven't done anything other than
> create some new samples with new names and updated the distro config to
> group samples to get a feel for how it looks. The samples folder itself is
> still flat and IMHO I can probably live with that as long as we take time to
> review the naming.
>
> Simon
>
I'm not sure what you mean, you say you're all for it (Adding some
structure) but also that the samples folder itself is still flat? How would
that work?
...ant
Re: Samples structure
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Related to the Samples thread [1] which is about how the samples work
> internally we can also consider how they get included in a distribution and
> thats come up in the distribution thread [2]. The main points there would be
> that the samples are changed from all being in a single flat samples folder
> to be grouped into sub folders, and that the sample names are rearranged to
> point out their main reason for being.
>
> Adding some structure seems to me like a huge improvement to the existing
> layout, there are so many samples now its become too hard and confusing to
> see whats what. However this has come up before and I'm not sure everyone
> agrees so before we spend much time does anyone want to raise any concerns
> about a change like this?
>
> ...ant
>
> [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/yofc6tptydeszty6
> [2] http://apache.markmail.org/message/uzmcywrpjctnlffy
>
We'll I'm for It but I should point out I haven't done anything other than
create some new samples with new names and updated the distro config to
group samples to get a feel for how it looks. The samples folder itself is
still flat and IMHO I can probably live with that as long as we take time to
review the naming.
Simon