On 22 October 2012 21:38, Inge Wallin <i...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: > On Monday, October 22, 2012 20:49:05 Sven Langkamp wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Inge Wallin <i...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: >> > On Monday, October 22, 2012 19:49:21 Sven Langkamp wrote: > > ... > >> > > I would prefer to have it at >> > > >> > > app/ >> > > >> > > core/ >> > > uidesktop/ >> > > uiactive/ >> > > >> > > The reason behind is that it's much better to keep everything in a >> > > single folder. For example if I commit somthing in krita/image and >> > > krita/ui, the commit message shows it as krita/, with the new >> > > structure it would show calligra/. Considering how many problems the >> > > distributions have with a seperate filter folder, I think it's better >> > > to keep it together. >> > >> > While I see your point, how would you handle calligra active that has one >> > interface for three applications at once? >> >> Calligra Active is a special case. It would likely sit on the the top level >> with the other applications and like to their core libraries. I think it's >> better to have one exception than completely changing all the others. > > Ok, that makes sense. > >> > And how would you handle Words and Author that share core functionality? >> >> Maybe an extra folder wordprocessing and in that folder Words and Author as >> seperate uis for the wordprocessing core. > > This is not so nice. We also have the same problem with Karbon and Flow: I.e. > they work on the same document type. I expect more of these when we get more > applications that are fit to a specific purpose. How about a simplified kids > office ui, for instance? > > Here is a third problem with your proposed outline: how about the current > libs/widgets? That would fit perfectly as ui/desktop/libs/widgets/ in my > proposal but I don't really see where you would fit it in your app-oriented > approach. > > In general I think that we should make horizontal slices (layers in a layered > approach) rather than vertical (i.e. app-oriented). The reason for that is > that it is easier to find common components to put in libraries with such a > model. I believe an app-oriented approach will be littered with special cases > and difficult to find libraries. The disadvantage that you mention, i.e. paths > in commits will be less specific is a minor one. If it really is important you > could probably split it in two different commits in many cases (not all, of > course).
Depends really how one works and thinks - vertically or horizontally - it can be dynamic. I prefer vertical as the default. Alternative could be handcrafted symlinks for supporting horizontal 'view'. -- regards / pozdrawiam, Jaroslaw Staniek Kexi & Calligra & KDE | http://calligra.org/kexi | http://kde.org Qt Certified Specialist | http://qt-project.org http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
