forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@indexgeo.com.au>
Subject Re: status.xml versus separate files
Date Mon, 18 Nov 2002 05:09:59 GMT
Diana Shannon wrote:
> What do Forresters prefer?
> 
> - a single (huge) status.xml for an existing, active project
> - separate changes.xml, todo.xml, and who.xml files (with edits to a 
> project's sitemap.xmap)

I grew up with Cocoon, so i am used to the separate files.
They have DTDs to control them, so that is good.
Another reason is that a project can have separate changes
and todo files at other levels of the project (Cocoon has
a changes.xml for the top-level and also changes-doc.xml).

When Forrest started, i was a little concerned that the
big status.xml would be clumsy, and still am concerned.
Also this file does not seem to have a DTD/RNG yet and
new capabilities seem to be added to it.

So i prefer the separate files.

However, i suspect that there is a good reason for the
status.xml ... i wonder if it is used by some some other
project like Gump or such. Also it may be an attempt to
get a common file used by all projects.

I am happy to use the centralised status.xml if we can
find a way to manage its growth. Perhaps regularly archive
stuff off to status-2002.xml etc. I suppose that the separate
changes.xml would have the same growth problem.

--David



Mime
View raw message