forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "MAISONOBE Luc" <luc.maison...@c-s.fr>
Subject Re: Cleaning Forrest source directory madness
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:33:36 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote :

> Scenario A (multiple dirs)
> 
>   content        all stuff to be "digested" by Forrest
>     xdocs        xml document-dtd files
>     html         html files
>     wiki
>     ...
>   resources      all stuff to be referenced as-is
>     images
>     scripts
>     styles
>     files
>     ...
>   global         all stuff to be referenced as-is and is always relative
>     images
>     scripts
>     styles
>     files
>     ...
> 
> Scenario B (single dirs)
>   content        all stuff to be "digested" by Forrest
>    <here goes mixed content>
>   resources      all stuff to be referenced as-is
>    <here goes mixed resources>
>   global         all stuff to be referenced as-is and is always relative
>    <here goes mixed global>

The more I think about it, the more I prefer scenario B.

Scenario A means directories have three different roles depending on 
their level. The first level (content vs. resources vs. global) 
specifies forrest-related features, mainly what the tool should do with 
the files. The second level (images vs. scripts vs. styles vs. files vs. 
anything else) specifies file types which is probably more a 
site-maintainer oriented feature to help him keep things clean, which is 
often a matter of taste and different for everyone. The third and deeper 
levels specify target site file structure, which is often a mapping of 
the navigation logic on the target site and hence oriented toward site 
users. These roles seem too interlaced (is it english ?, should I say 
interwoven or intertwin ?) and they assign different meanings to one 
mechanism: file hierarchy.

The upper level (content vs. resources vs.global), which is the same in 
both proposals seems fine to drive forrest behaviour.

File type organisation, IMHO, should be let to the user and be at the 
lowest level.

Target site structure, should probably not be specified here. Isn't the 
site.xml file specifically designed for that ? Couldn't this file take 
care of all this structuring (including resources and global) and be 
moved up in the hierarchy (at the same level as content, resources and 
global, or above, next to status.xml ? By the why is this status.xml 
file this high in the directory tree ?

                                                             Luc



Mime
View raw message