[SDM-SPA] Re: [kepler-dev] moving edu.ncsu to org.sdm.spa

Bertram Ludaescher ludaesch at sdsc.edu
Wed Apr 7 08:30:00 PDT 2004

>>>>> "XX" == Xiaowen Xin <xin2 at llnl.gov> writes:
XX> src/org/geon/OpenDBConnection.java, which is the only non-spa file I
XX> could find that uses the code in util/.  Would it be okay for me to move
XX> what's now in src/util into org/sdm/spa/util/?  Alternatively, we could
XX> move those two files into org/geon/util/.

This "projectisation" gets tricky it seems. 
I think we shouldn't overdue it, but leave it to folks in the trenches 
to figure out the details for now.

But if we do organization by project (which as we see creates some
interesting issues), then we shouldn't move GEON actors under SPA --
util or not. It should be somewhere under GEON.

Also for n projects will we have 2^n subdirectories for all possible
combinations? Where is the browserUI actor now? I think it's at least
SPA&GEON. Maybe a subsequent version will be SPA&GEON&SEEK or
SPA&GEON&Ptolemy, or of course SPA&GEON&PTOLEMY&SEEK. 

XX> The reason for this is that since we're already dividing up most of the
XX> source files by organization, we should just divide it all up by
XX> organization.  

What do we do with stuff that is authored by multiple authors (like
browserUI)? I really want to understand how that works!

XX> I think the reason people wanted a util/ directory is so
XX> that it would be a place to put code that would be useful for all
XX> projects.  
XX> However, this criteria is hard to determine because most of
XX> the code from one project could potentially be useful in the other
XX> projects.  So I think having a util/ directory as a subdirectory of the
XX> projects makes more sense.  

I don't understand how this solves the problem. How would Efrat (GEON)
know whether actors X,Y,Z she is developing are "util" (and thus
potentially useful for others) or not? 
Should she spend cycles on figuring out what might be useful? I guess
the database access actor will be, but what about the point in

I claim that fundamentally one CANNOT know what will be useful to
others or not. By default everything could be useful, right?

XX> If SPA needed to use something from GEON, we
XX> could import org.geon.*; or org.geon.util.* as an example.  The

yes, that makes sense.

XX> distinction here between org.sdm.spa.* and org.sdm.spa.util.* is that
XX> util.* contains non-actor utility code, while all the actors go into
XX> org.sdm.spa.*.
XX> I hope that made sense :)

yes, if you just want to split between non-actor code and actor code, then the 
distinction between util and non-util seems reasonable.

So do I understand the proposal right that each project would have two 
subdirectories say

.../geon/util and
.../geon/actors  ? 

(only that the actors you didn't have as a separate subdir so far)

Still a major problem with this organization by project remains: 
How do you deal with joint development, even at the file level
(actors, directors etc)? This is precisely what we want to encourage
in Kepler. Where do these things go? 


XX> Xiaowen
XX> _______________________________________________
XX> kepler-dev mailing list
XX> kepler-dev at ecoinformatics.org
XX> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/kepler-dev

More information about the Kepler-dev mailing list