Re: [openlilylib] Discuss restructuring

[Urs Liska]

Am 05.07.2014 05:30, schrieb Paul Morris:
> Uns Liska wrote
> > I can see the point and I'm ready to accept that approach. There is one
> > issue, however, that I'd like to discuss before making any decision.
> >
> >       \include "file-name.ily"
> >
> > opens the door wide for name conflicts. The more the names are speaking
> > the more they will be likely to exist in other places too. Particularly
> > as much of the stuff we have (and will have) is of quite similar
> > characteristic as all the other files inside LilyPond which can be
> > included directly.
> >
> > So I would suggest inserting a kind of namespace through the following:
> >
> > - don't name the root directory "library" but "oll"
> >     This is a good "prefix" as it is characteristic _and_ short
> > - let the user add the actual root directory instead of the "oll"
> >     subdirectory to the include path
> > - let the files be included with
> >     \include "oll/file-name.ily"
>
> Good point, and I think that's a good solution to it as well.  The only
> drawback I see is that adding the root directory means you lose some of the
> separation between the files that are to be included and those that are not.
> Do you think it would be worth doing something like this to keep it?
>
>    root/library/oll/filename.ily
>
> Users would add the library directory (limits access to just includable
> files), and it only contains the oll directory (provides namespace).
>
> Just an idea, not sure if the extra directory is worth it or not.

Haha, that is *exactly* what I thought too yesterday.
Go to
https://github.com/openlilylib/openlilylib/tree/reorganization
and have a look at the "library" and "usage-examples" folders. They are 
a first sketch :-)


> The rest of what you wrote all sounds fine to me.

Thanks.
I think we will have to reconsider our metadata section and then do the 
transfer in that "reorganization" branch. I strongly suggest to 
excusively do that using pull requests, even among the members with push 
access.

One more thing I would suggest to implement is some more standardization 
for the examples files. These should have formalized headers that are 
created by pulling in the fields from the definitions file. This should 
be quite easy to implement: Create one file with the redefinition of 
\booktitlemarkup and place this somewhere outside the user-accessible 
files. Then each examples file can simply include this with a relative 
path and there you go.
(-> This implies that our metadata considerations take this into account 
too)

Best
Urs

> Cheers,
> -Paul