Neos project mono repositories

Creating Neos & Flow Code
13

Would be fine with src as well, that is also how Java packages look.

2 Likes
14

src is also fine for me

15

Need to restart the poll to do so.

16

src would be perfect. I changed my poll to something else

17

I changed “something else” with “src”.

18

Looks like we have a majority for “src” :slight_smile:

19

Yep, apparently…

20

As this is only to become a documented best practice, we could still change it at a late date, but for now seems “src” is the preferred path name. @mficzel would you change splash at some point? I will change my example repository.

21

@christianm yes offcourse, planning some splash work the next weeks anyways

1 Like
22

I know the voting is done and i am 10d to late for this, but i am very unhappy with this since all other directories and names in flow/neos follow the camelcase style. The goal to install all packages by composer is great, but ./src looks like a pothole inside project repositories.

23

Consider src a storage for your packages, when running a mono repository. Alternatively, you will have multiple Git repositories, and require them via composer.json and enter the repositroies in the configuration.

The src is just for a documentation purpose - you can call it whatever you want. This poll is not reflected in any core code, that will make your project none-functional, if you don’t use it. So the naming is up to you.

24

I know Soren that this will not change any core package. It will be a best practice suggestion from the core team. But a suggestion from the core team will weighs sometimes like a rule to other developers. And not follow the core flow/neos directory naming will confuse some others…

My comment is only to have this in mind when making best practice advices.

25

For the record, I also dislike “src” for the reason of not fitting into the overall Flow directory structure. I suggested DistributionPackages back then and unfortunately missed this discussion here.

26

I voted for DistributionPackages back then. And then forgot about this poll, TBH.

But seeing a majority for src makes me cringe. Probably we missed to explain why that would be a bad name…

  • src is “random”. It could be just about anything. Everything in a Git repository is source, somehow, no?
  • src violates our naming conventions. In Flow we usually have no files/folders starting with a lowercase character.
  • src is an abbreviation. We usually try to avoid those and favour telling names.

The suggested DistributionPackages on the other hand fulfills all our wishes and clearly explains what it contains - packages that are shipped with the distribution.

I’d urge everyone to consider this, and I’d even dare to ignore the vote in this case…

27

As the original poll doesn’t show who voted (and so we cannot look at team member votes, and was just asked about this), I would like to redo this vote:

  • LocalPackages
  • DistributionPackages
  • Source
  • src

0 voters

28

Not opinionated, both Local and Distribution Packages sound OK.

1 Like
29

I respect all opinions, but let’s state again: It’s just a folder containing whatever your needs might be for your mono repository. 99% comes from composer.json dependencies anyway. And whatever will be voted will be a part of the documentation, but no one is locked to that name. So name it, whatever makes sense in terms of documentation and understanding of what it’s there for :slight_smile:

And yes, I was the one bringing up src because that’s a name I’ve seen in oh so many other frameworks and libraries, when structuring code and used it my self. I have no big love or feelings for that name :slight_smile:

30

same here, both respect the recommended naming conventions and are equal to me when it comes to semantics

31

I will accept whatever the majority does but agree that DistributionPackages and LocalPackages look much nicer in a flow-distribution.