framework/base/src/start and framework/base/src/base

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

framework/base/src/start and framework/base/src/base

Adam Heath-2
Why does the base component have 2 sets of classes?  Wouldn't it make
more sense to split it into 2 separate components?  Maybe move src/start
to a top-level start component?

I'm not suggesting to rename any class packages; just move the files around.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: framework/base/src/start and framework/base/src/base

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
+1 : can't see any drawbacks and will be more clear

Jacques

From: "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]>
> Why does the base component have 2 sets of classes?  Wouldn't it make
> more sense to split it into 2 separate components?  Maybe move src/start
> to a top-level start component?
>
> I'm not suggesting to rename any class packages; just move the files around.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: framework/base/src/start and framework/base/src/base

Adam Heath-2
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> +1 : can't see any drawbacks and will be more clear
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]>
>> Why does the base component have 2 sets of classes?  Wouldn't it make
>> more sense to split it into 2 separate components?  Maybe move
>> src/start to a top-level start component?

So does anyone say no to this?  If not, I'll do it tonight.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: framework/base/src/start and framework/base/src/base

Jacopo Cappellato-3
what are the advantages in doing this? Or, what are the disadvantages  
in keeping things as they are now?

Jacopo

On Aug 7, 2008, at 12:12 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> +1 : can't see any drawbacks and will be more clear
>> Jacques
>> From: "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]>
>>> Why does the base component have 2 sets of classes?  Wouldn't it  
>>> make more sense to split it into 2 separate components?  Maybe  
>>> move src/start to a top-level start component?
>
> So does anyone say no to this?  If not, I'll do it tonight.


smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: framework/base/src/start and framework/base/src/base

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
IMHO

advantages : more clear (base is not start and vice-versa)
disadvantages : change (which can always introduce not foreseen disturbances)

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> what are the advantages in doing this? Or, what are the disadvantages  
> in keeping things as they are now?
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Aug 7, 2008, at 12:12 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> +1 : can't see any drawbacks and will be more clear
>>> Jacques
>>> From: "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]>
>>>> Why does the base component have 2 sets of classes?  Wouldn't it  
>>>> make more sense to split it into 2 separate components?  Maybe  
>>>> move src/start to a top-level start component?
>>
>> So does anyone say no to this?  If not, I'll do it tonight.
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: framework/base/src/start and framework/base/src/base

Adam Heath-2
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-3
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> what are the advantages in doing this? Or, what are the disadvantages in
> keeping things as they are now?

Sameness.

All 'component' type directories will have the same layout.  This means
developers won't need to remember as much when looking how things work;
they won't need to know that framework/base is special.

Having different setups requires more work on new developers.  It we can
make it easier for new people to get started with OfBiz, then we can all
benefit.

Doing pattern searches is simpler, because all directories have the same
structure.