forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Moving map:components to the root sitemap?
Date Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:41:07 GMT
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:40:55AM +0200, Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
...
> You are asuming that everyone overwrites sitemap. Now we have a problem 
> here, we are using sitemap that belows to forrest to customize, we need 
> to find a fix on this. A way that you can customized without touching 
> something that belongs to forrest.

That's the way Forrest works.  You go as far as you can with the default
sitemap, and when you hit a limitation you override the sitemap.  How
else could it be done?

> For users that have sitemap, if they overwrite then it will not work,
> navigation.xmap, static.xmap have changed names so they have to modify
> the latest sitemap version anyway.

Yes, that's why I'm rather glad we haven't rushed the 0.5 release.  Once
we do release, we can't mess around with the 'contracts' between
sitemaps.

> >>So to avoid this you want to had the same definition more than once?
> >
> >
> >Yes, if necessary.  Which is better: to duplicate a definition, or have
> >everyone's site break whenever we change a subsitemap?  What is the cost
> >of a duplicated definition?  In the worst case, a change to sitemap.xmap
> >has no effect.  The alternative is to _guarantee_ things breaking.
> >
> 
> I would like to see things tidier, if having the definition on sitemap 
> is a problem then lets move it to the submaps, then things will break as 
> well for anyone that has overwrite the submaps.

There's always situations when things will break.  The trick is to
minimise the chance for ordinary users.

> So we need a decision:
> 
> Let the sitemap be overwrite by the user so it only defines the URI 
> space (pipelines) and call the submaps.

That's more or less what sitemap.xmap does, or have I misunderstood you?

> >
> >>I looked on the issue with the menu.xmap and I think that the config
> >>component can be used in more than one map, so it makes sense to have
> >>it on sitemap.
> >
> >
> >Yes, it _can_ be used in multiple places, but currently it is used in
> >only one.  Things should be scoped locally until the necessity for global
> >scoping becomes apparent.
> >
> >
> 
> After the definition is in place, when you overwrite sitemap, the scope 
> is all the submaps.
> 
> Keep components definitions local/globalize

?

> >>I rather have an error when I upgrade than a side effect that I am not
> >>aware of.
> >
> >
> >As a user, I'd rather have my site _not_ be broken every time someone
> >adds a new feature to Forrest ;)
> >
> >
> 
> 
> I do not mind if the definition is on sitemap or in the submaps, what I 
> really care is that thinks are tidier. At the moment they are not, and 
> it makes harder to find problems.

It's all about tradeoffs.  In this case, we give up some neatness, and
gain a) explicitness, b) a site that doesn't break catastrophically
when someone modifies it.


--Jeff

> Cheers,
> Cheche
> 

Mime
View raw message