forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: skinconf.xml , single configuration point?
Date Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:21:37 GMT

Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:37:24PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>To reduce the number of files needed for forrest, I would propose to 
>>move all under skinconf.xml, and that file be used in 
>>Ant via XmlProperty.
> They don't configure the skin, should why should they be in skinconf?

skinconf -> forrestconf ?

>>This way we have only one configuration file.
> Then how about:
>  - merging into properties.xml

This I thought about before, but only this basically just moves the 
problem from a properties file to another...

>  - merging skinconf.xml into module.xml
> Merging skinconf.xml and module.xml was always the plan, since they both
> contain generic project metadata.
> I don't reeeally see much benefit in merging skinconf and module though..

Actually I don't either, because the skinconf is (IMV based on Centipede 
experience) both about metadata and build-properties, like the includes 
and excludes.

> Advantage: we don't duplicate the <project-name/> in skinconf.xml with
> <project name="..."/> in module.xml

This is good...

> Disadvantage: we force module.xml on projects that may not want it

Actually it's not such a bad thing.
Maven can generate it automatically, and this could help Mavenized 
projects to easily:

  1) use Forrest also standalone
  2) be ready for Gump

How about this then:
  * For project metadata like group, vendor, etc, we use module.xml
  * For Forrest properties, we put a reference in module.xml to the xml
    file that contains them, and in our case it can be properties.xml
    by default

Does this sound better?

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message