Directory restructuring on hold

[Colin Clark]

Hey Justin,

I’m supportive of any approach that helps us get the release out the door in good time. Our directory structure certainly does need to be updated, but I think we can leave it until right after we cut the release.

Anastasia, thanks for summarizing the directory structure we had talked about. This is very helpful. A few more thoughts:

* If a demo isn’t something we’d want to show our friends, family, and funders, it should be moved to the “manual tests” directory
* If a demo is old or out of date, it should be flat out deleted
* The only demos in our demos directory should be ones that we think are cool and informative to users of Infusion
* We should switch to using Bower for managing third-party dependencies wherever possible
* In cases where we have to store a third-party dependency in our repository, we should name the folder “third-party,” instead of “lib,” which most Node.js developers nowadays expect to contain source code

Thoughts?

Colin


On May 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Justin Obara <obara.justin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback Anastasia. 
> 
> In the discussion at the meeting yesterday, it came up that lib didn't seem to fit into the src directory either because it isn't code that was written by us. In regards to the destruction of the integration demos, I had tried to do that for the 1.5 release. However, it seems that this is a unique use case that we need to keep for the pager. Perhaps it could be moved to the manual tests though.
> 
> Anastasia, could you describe a bit the differences and the purposes of each type of demo (showcase, instructional, standalone).
> 
> Thanks
> Justin
> 
> On May 29, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Cheetham, Anastasia <acheetham at ocadu.ca> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 2014-05-28, at 3:48 PM, Justin Obara wrote:
>> 
>> questions arose regarding how best to organize the various demos. Currently we have demos, instructional-demos, integration-demos, stand-alone demos, and manual tests. It's hard to know the difference between these.
>> 
>> Good questions, Justin. I looked back though past emails and discussions and found this email:
>> 
>> http://fluid.2324889.n4.nabble.com/Proposed-folder-hierarchy-for-Infusion-code-td8919.html
>> 
>> Basically, the proposal was:
>> 
>> src
>>  framework
>>  components
>>  lib
>>  module
>> demos
>>  showcase
>>  instructional
>>  integration <- to be destroyed
>>  standalone
>> tests
>> 
>> 
>> For the demos/instructional folder, the hierarchy would mirror, as much as reasonable, the hierarchy of the source folder. In general:
>> 
>> demos/instructional
>>  framework
>>          core
>>          prefs
>>          renderer
>>  components
>>      componentX
>>          shared
>>              css
>>                  shared.css
>>              html
>>                  shared.html
>>              js
>>                  shared.js
>>          demoX
>>              css
>>                  file.css
>>              html
>>                  file.html
>>              js
>>                  file.js
>>          demoY
>>              css
>>                  file.css
>>              html
>>                  file.html
>>              js
>>                  file.js
>>      componentY
>>      etc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Anastasia Cheetham     Inclusive Design Research Centre
>> acheetham at ocadu.ca<mailto:acheetham at ocadu.ca>           Inclusive Design Institute
>>                                       OCAD University
>> 
>> <winmail.dat>
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work