forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Cleaning Forrest source directory madness
Date Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:48:52 GMT
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 05:54:57PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
[snip agreed-on stuff]
...
> About status.xml, having it in the root of the project serves a
> purpose, but it's more than ugly from other perspectives.

It at least illustrates one point; that eventually we should have the
Forrest webapp rooted in the project root.  That way, we could
potentially transform anything in the project.  In particular, we could
use qdox/chaperon to do something useful with Java source.

> For example, we should stop creating a file named todo.html out of it, 
> as it should be one source -> one result. Aggregation can be done, but 
> not the opposite.

Why not the opposite?

> Tha said, I still like it this way, there is an advantage to it.
> 
> Ideas?

...
[snip good stuff on images]
...

> The only one that will remain is "raw", and it seems that there is a 
> real-life use case for it.
>
> Mind me, I would still add a **.* matcher at the end of the 
> content-handling pipeline, so that content/** can still contain anything.

Sounds good.

> But as you know in this way I cannot easily cater for the special case 
> in which I want to explicitly have something as-is, like for example a 
> raw document-dtd xml file.

The more important reason for needing a raw/ directory is that the
crawler can't crawl the entire URI space, so we need an Ant <copy
from="...raw/" to="build/site/"> to copy uncrawlable stuff.

> So the content dir is about all content, that Forrest *may* alter.
> The raw dir is about content that Forrest may *not* alter in any way.
> 
> I think we agree, no?

Yep.


--Jeff

Mime
View raw message