ENGAGE-88: Create the directory structure for the Engage 0.1 release and move the relevant pieces from the incubator

Description

We need to discuss the directory structure that we want for 0.1, create it and then move kettle and other engage pieces from the incubator into the final directory structure.

Here's a thread that outlines the discussion about directory restructuring for Engage:

http://www.nabble.com/Engage-restructing-proposal-td25827497.html

Comments

• Justin Obara commented 2009-09-21T16:36:34.000-0400

  Bug Parade Engage 0.1

• Colin Clark commented 2009-10-14T15:34:16.000-0400

  Antranig and I further discussed the directory naming issue. Here's a transcript of our chat:

  What to call engage-client?

  [14/10/09 2:58:44 PM] Antranig Basman: Well, this whole issue seems a bit confused
  [14/10/09 2:58:48 PM] Colin Clark: And in fact, we currently run chunks of that code happily on the server
  [14/10/09 2:58:55 PM] Antranig Basman: I was glad you reminded me of the fact that all client code could in fact run on the server
  [14/10/09 2:59:02 PM] Colin Clark: for sure 🙂
  [14/10/09 2:59:04 PM] Antranig Basman: But not that we would really ever want it to
  [14/10/09 2:59:22 PM] Colin Clark: I guess if we could imagine a better name for the stuff in engage-client, we should consider
  [14/10/09 2:59:28 PM] Antranig Basman: yes
  [14/10/09 2:59:32 PM] Colin Clark: I could only come up with negative definitions
  [14/10/09 2:59:38 PM] Colin Clark: "non-server-specific"
  [14/10/09 2:59:41 PM] Antranig Basman: The trouble is, the design of it currently seems a bit confused in itself
  [14/10/09 2:59:45 PM] Colin Clark: or otherwise dorky names
  [14/10/09 2:59:47 PM] Colin Clark: Oh, for sure it is
  [14/10/09 2:59:52 PM] Antranig Basman: So it is further harder to know what to call it 😛
  [14/10/09 2:59:55 PM] Colin Clark: 🙂
  [14/10/09 3:00:12 PM] Colin Clark: I guess I'd argue that engage-client is currently just all the stuff that doesn't directly depend on Kettle APIs
  [14/10/09 3:00:21 PM] Antranig Basman: I guess the split between "engage-client" and "engage-server" is actually not good
  [14/10/09 3:00:28 PM] Colin Clark: no, not especially
  [14/10/09 3:00:39 PM] Antranig Basman: Can't we call it "engage-core"?
  [14/10/09 3:00:56 PM] Colin Clark: engage-core and engage-server or engage-services or engage-feeds or something?
  [14/10/09 3:01:10 PM] Antranig Basman: engage-core and engage-server seems good

• Michelle D'Souza commented 2009-11-03T16:26:59.000-0500

  Most of the work for this issue is complete. The remaining work is captured under: ENGAGE-168