coapp-developers team mailing list archive
-
coapp-developers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00107
Common library paths
Currently, the plan is to have something like this for common files (bin/doc/include/lib):
└───Program Files [and Program Files (x86)]
└───Common Files -- already present in Windows installations
└───CoApp **** -- Common parent for all shared components
├───bin -- directory for shared tools & utilities
├───doc -- container directory for common documentation
├───include -- container directory for library include files
├───resources -- container directory resources associated with a component
└───lib
I'm starting to think the CoApp directory is redundant, and just a waste of space and time.
If we dropped it, the result is:
└───Program Files [and Program Files (x86)]
└───Common Files -- already present in Windows installations
├───bin -- directory for shared tools & utilities
├───doc -- container directory for common documentation
├───include -- container directory for library include files
├───resources -- container directory resources associated with a component
└───lib
This makes it a little less cumbersome, and I highly doubt we'll see any collision in there anyway.
I like this a bit better, because in the Program Files folder, CoApp would be considered the name of a "Publisher", not the "System".
Some sample paths:
% ProgramFiles%\common files\bin\grep.exe
% ProgramFiles%\common files\include\zlib\zlib.h
Hmm. This leads to wondering if we really need "common files" in the middle. I've never seen bin/lib/doc/include in program files...
Comments?
[Description: fearthecowboy]<http://fearthecowboy.com/>
Garrett Serack | Microsoft's Open Source Software Developer | Microsoft Corporation
Office:(425)706-7939 email/messenger: garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
blog: http://fearthecowboy.com<http://fearthecowboy.com/> twitter: @fearthecowboy<http://twitter.com/fearthecowboy>
I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on Windows.
Follow ups