[kepler-dev] RFC new directory structure
Edward A Lee
eal at eecs.berkeley.edu
Thu Mar 18 07:22:41 PST 2004
We have avoided having a directory called "src" because in Unix
culture such directories are optional. I.e., you don't need them
to run the software. If you have a "src" tree, then there
should be a separate tree for .class and .xml files, which is a
hassle. If you are releasing open source, there really isn't
any reason (that I see) to do this...
At 03:20 PM 3/17/2004 -0800, Xiaowen Xin wrote:
>David, Ilkay, Zhengang, Dan and I have discussed on the phone and over
>email the last couple of days about the directory hierarchy
>reorganization and have come to a rough consensus. This will be a long
>email, so please bear with me =)
>The problem basically is that there is currently no clear organization
>of the files in the CVS repository. Workflows are scattered around the
>lib/ directory for example, and it's not clear, looking at the
>repository, which files relate to SPA and which to one of the other
>Here's a pictorial view of how we would like to reorganize the
>repository. I will be talking mostly about SPA, but the concepts should
>carry over to the other Kepler projects as well.
> - runVergil.bat
> - runVergil.sh
>- build (directory used for compiling the sources)
> - jar (directory for all the jars)
> - dll (directory for all the dlls)
> - org
> - ecoinformatics
> - geon
> - sdm
> - spa (directory for all the spa-related actors)
> - util
> - spa (directory for spa workflows)
> - seek
> - geon
>So all the SPA related actors will be in the org.sdm.spa package.
>Currently there are some SPA actors in edu.ncsu.sdm, but this doesn't
>make much conceptual sense. There's no reason to divide up SPA source
>files according to the organization that developed it, since all of SPA
>will be working closely together to create _one_ set of interrelated
>actors. Zhengang will work on moving the actors from edu.ncsu.sdm to
>org.sdm.spa. It's better to divide up the source files by project
>rather than by organization because the boundary between organizations
>is artificial and only serves to confuse things.
>Currently, there's a util/ directory in src/. This isn't really
>consistent with our naming convention so far (i.e. putting source files
>in packages that reflect which project made them). The argument for
>having a util/ directory has been that we'd like to put useful classes
>in there that can be shared between the projects. However, this
>argument doesn't make much sense because theoretically, all of our
>actors could be shared between the projects. So we'd like to move the
>files in util/ to org/sdm/spa/util. If another project requires the
>functionality of those two classes, then it would have to include the
>org.sdm.spa.util package instead of simply the util package.
>After making these changes, all the SPA source files will be in
>org/sdm/spa, thus making it much easier to distinguish SPA and its
>contribution to Kepler.
>Currently, all the workflows are in lib/ and there are some that are not
>in CVS at all. We would like create a top-level workflows/ directory to
>store all of the workflows. spa, seek, and geon would be subdirectories
>under there. Thus all SPA workflows will be put in workflows/spa/.
>Similarly, GEON and SEEK should probably do the same with their
>With this directory structure, it would be easy to tell which workflows
>are designed for which project, but we must also remember to check all
>of our workflows into CVS, and update them when/if they break. Having
>PIW-full.xml, PIW-full_new_matt.xml, PIW-int-ex0.xml, and
>PIW-full_new.xml, as we do right now is just plain confusing!
>Currently the lib/ directory is a mess. It appears to be the garbage
>bin, where everything is dumped if the author can't find a better
>container for it. So we propose a series of steps to clean this up.
>1. There are two dll's in lib/. There should probably be a subdirectory
>called dll/ under lib/ that contains these dll's. The person who put
>these there should probably move them ...
>2. demos.htm and ptolemy-index.html should probably be moved out of lib/
>and into a more appropriate folder, probably into src/.
>3. Ilkay will dispose of lib/forBerkeley/ and lib/forSB/ folders or move
>them into the top-level test/ folder since they contain testing material
>and so don't belong in lib/. Whoever's responsible for
>lib/ecoPipelines/ should probably do the same because that's testing
>material also as I understand it.
>4. Is everyone ok with our deleting makefile and makefile.lib from
>lib/? These are also not library files, and we're not using makefiles
>5. We should move runVergil.bat and runVergil.sh into a top-level bin/
>6. Does anyone know what lib/sample.dat and lib/scew-0.3.1.tar.gz are?
>Can we delete them?
>7. We will delete the lib/soap directory because it's empty, and there's
>already a lib/jar/soap that contains jar files.
>8. We need to do something about lib/testdata/ because it's not a
>library file. I personally think it should be moved into the global
>9. We will move lib/workflow/ into the top-level workflows/ directory.
>The existence of src/exp/ seems a bit questionable. It seems to stand
>for "experimental". Maybe it's time to either make it stable and
>incorporate it into an existing project, or delete it ...
>Please comment! If nobody objects to the proposed restructuring here, I
>can do nothing but assume everybody loves it =) We'd like to get this
>finalized as soon as possible, which would make it easier to create a
>distribution. Matt will be back next week from travel I believe, and it
>would be wonderful to have some kind of rudimentary installer for him.
>kepler-dev mailing list
>kepler-dev at ecoinformatics.org
Edward A. Lee, Professor
518 Cory Hall, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720
phone: 510-642-0455, fax: 510-642-2739
eal at eecs.Berkeley.EDU, http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/~eal
More information about the Kepler-dev