From: Intransition Date: 2011-08-27T04:43:56+09:00 Subject: Re: Conventions for reusable component assets On Aug 25, 5:23 pm, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Since you are going to use gems it solves your question. gems separate > files of each gem into a separate directory. Not quite. The program I am working on build a website. It needs to take files from different components such as images and stylesheets and brings them all together into a single website layout. So I have to decide if the different components should merge their files, i.e. all images get put in a shared `assets/images/` directory. Or do I have each component keep it's own place, e.g. `assets/images/ component1/`, `assets/images/component2/` or something to that effect. In other words, my question is, when building a website, how to organize reusable libs like jquery, thickbox, google-code-prettify, etc. How do all of these get integrated into a site. And so my question about what conventions have grown up around these. I wonder why there are not more standard practices in this regard. > In general separate directories are easy to manage manually. > Installing/updating/replacing a package is easy then. > > Using unified location across packages (like FHS) requires a package > manager that tracks which files are part of what so that they can be > later removed or upgraded easily and lends itself to modularity. You > can reference some file like images/site-logo.png and have several > packages that provide the file and several others that reference it, > and it will work as long as one of the packages that provides the logo > is present. A fair case made for using a shard location. Hmm...