[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fm directories
- To: <heh@xxxxxxxxxx>, <roger@xxxxxxxxxx>, <tribble@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: fm directories
- From: Roger Gregory <roger>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 90 15:20:22 PDT
- Cc: <xtech@xxxxxxxxxx>
I think that we should split out the files currently under fm that are
application specific. Those would be the files like demo, demobld, ddoc,
passage, tapple, dirlink and dthunks.
These files only use fm and are not part of FM. I think that another
directory ("tapestry" comes to mind) is more appopriate for these. We are
going to have to do the split sometime anyway when it comes time to give this
stuff out to developers.
I'm not so sure, lets see how splitting out system dependent stuff works first.
As to splitting it out for the developers, they're going to get it any way (that's the
whole point of writing it, so that developers will have a minimal starting place to work from)
it might be more convinent to seperate out application dependent stuff, but I'm sure we
can't tell what that is at this point. Certainly passage, ddoc, demo, dirlink are fairly general
and anyone who likes our style (that doesn't include me) would want them. One of the
things about object reuse is that application boundries kind of go away, so what is application
I would prefer to have all the files in one directory anyhow, rather than scattered
randomly as they are now, it would make them eaiser to find. When debugging rather than
writing code, the pieces that are needed tend not to be close by, and the seperated
clusters of code tend to make things more difficult, not simpiler. Since this is an unpopular
enough position as to have no chance of happening, I haven't pushed it much, but you should remember
that there is a cost as well as a gain to any of these organizations.