[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [stem-dev] SVN Directory Structure
- From: Daniel Ford <daford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:21:43 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Seems like a reasonable structure. Breaking out STEM so that diseases and geography are completely separate would be a good thing. Ideally, STEM would be a small RCP that then goes to an update site that pulls in the disease modeling and geography features that turn it into a disease modeling system (rather than something else) would be a good thing. The basic RCP and its "extensions" could be developed and maintained independently. Decoupling is good. Perhaps "designing" separate "components" in the repository would map to such an approach.
Maybe the next step is to discuss a breakdown of STEM into its "Components".
Core Models (graph, scenario, experiment, etc.)
Matthew Davis---06/03/2009 05:06:13 PM---Hi all,
Sent by: stem-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
06/03/2009 05:04 PM
Please respond to
STEM developer mailing list <stem-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On the call today, there was a discussion about directory structure for the SVN move. It was decided that we should follow a consistent naming scheme to what other Eclipse projects are using.
For SVN, you have the three default roots, used for tagged revision control:
Some Eclipse Projects are moving toward a more standardized sub-convention based on workspace project type.
For example, in the Equinox repository, in the trunk they have:
and then inside of some of those directories, you see:
In my opinion, separating bundles, features, examples, and tests is a good strategy (although it slightly complicates checkout). Should there be any higher granularity to the separation (maybe data, models, or geography?) Also, should there be a higher level separation between logical components of STEM (core, diseases, UI, etc)?
stem-dev mailing list