Return-Path: 
 <forrest-dev-return-5934-apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 61552 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2003 09:21:59 -0000
Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:forrest-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 61541 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2003 09:21:58 -0000
Received: from mail-4.tiscali.it (195.130.225.150)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jun 2003 09:21:58 -0000
Received: from apache.org (62.10.54.214) by mail-4.tiscali.it (6.7.016)
        id 3EE063B400445981 for forrest-dev@xml.apache.org;
 Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:22:08 +0200
Message-ID: <3EE99771.30105@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:20:49 +0200
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org>
Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cleaning Forrest source directory madness
References: <3EE862C4.6060207@apache.org> <3EE87320.1030909@c-s.fr>
In-Reply-To: <3EE87320.1030909@c-s.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N


MAISONOBE Luc wrote, On 12/06/2003 14.33:
> 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.
...
> 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.

This is also what I believe. So it seems that there is a need for this, 
even with other users.

But as I told Juan Jose, we have to cater also for other users that 
prefer the other scenario.

> 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 ? 

Hmmm, conceptually I understand, but practically? Site.xml does not 
contain all files... hmmm...

> By the why is this status.xml 
> file this high in the directory tree ?

Because it's more about the project than the docs, so it's with the 
project root. Not sure if it's right, but this is nevertheless the 
reason. ;-)

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------