[Smtk-developers] Pie in the sky

[David Thompson]

> I’m ok either though I tend to like keeping “like” files close so having a json or pybind subdirectory in the same directory as the source file does remind you that you might need to make changes to them as well.

I agree that's useful. It sounds like everyone's in agreement not to force separate directories for each library's source files -- at least for wrapping and serialization.

> What about the stuff under bridge :) - should it be 
> 
> smtk/extension/session/polygon,
> or
> smtk/extension/modeler/polygon
> or  maybe 
> smtk/modeler/polygon?

In my examples, I put it under extension/smtk/model/polygon so it would live in the smtk::model::polygon namespace. That eliminates the need for another namespace like kernel, session, or modeler. I would prefer to keep namespaces shallow and broad, however if you want to be more explicit at the top-level of SMTK's sources, we could split the extensions directory into different functional categories:

  modeler/smtk/model/polygon
  modeler/smtk/model/discrete

  mesher/smtk/mesh/triangle
  mesher/smtk/mesh/netgen

  gui/smtk/qt
  gui/smtk/paraview
  gui/smtk/vtk

instead of just putting them all in extension/smtk/...

Since no one appears to mind libraries with some source-dir overlap, maybe we could eliminate core and extensions at the top level and just have

  smtk/attribute/core
  smtk/model/{core, polygon, discrete, ...}
  smtk/mesh/{core, moab, vtk, pumi, ...}
  smtk/qt
  smtk/vtk
  smtk/paraview/{server, components, ...}

and just make one library out of smtk/*/core. Or to be more consistent,

  smtk/core/{attribute, mesh, model, operation, resource}
  smtk/{discrete, mesh, polygon, ...}/{operators, environment, ...}
  smtk/{qt, paraview, python, vtk}

would put all of smtkCore in smtk/core/* (along with its json, pybind, and environment libraries). That simplifies the directory layout a bit, but now what are the namespaces? Would we have smtk::core::model but smtk::polygon for the polygon session? I like keeping namespaces that correspond to directory trees.

	David

>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 4:33 PM, David Thompson <david.thompson at kitware.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I vote for putting them in the subdirectories of whatever source they wrap/serialize since each of them is associated with a specific file/class.
>> 
>> I think TJ was hinting that we we do this:
>> 
>>>  core/json/smtk/{attribute, mesh, model}/jsonResource.{h,cxx}
>>>  core/pybind11/smtk/{attribute, mesh, model}/Py{Attribute, Mesh, Model}.cxx
>>> 
>>>  extension/json/smtk/{attribute, mesh, model}/jsonResource.{h,cxx}
>>>  extension/pybind11/smtk/{attribute, mesh, model}/Py{Attribute, Mesh, Model}.cxx
>> 
>> then everything in core/smtk is in the smtkCore library; everything in the core/json directory could live in an smtkCoreJSON directory, etc. In general, the pattern would be that no two libraries have code in the same source directory.
>> 
>> 	David
>> _______________________________________________
>> Smtk-developers mailing list
>> Smtk-developers at smtk.org
>> https://smtk.org/mailman/listinfo/smtk-developers
>