forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Juan Jose Pablos <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: xml-forrest/src/resources/conf aggregate.xmap dtd.xmap faq.xmap forrest.xmap issues.xmap linkmap.xmap menu.xmap profiler.xmap raw.xmap resources.xmap revisions.xmap sitemap.xmap status.xmap
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:47:24 GMT

>>They do nothing.
> They act as documentation, and make the subsitemap's interface with the
> owner sitemap explicit.  It's like declaring your dependencies; always a
> good thing.

IMO it is confused, for status there is not map:readers map:selectors or 
map:resources but you have those entries there.

>  Also, when next someone wants to add a transformer, they can
> immediately see where to add the component definition, and don't risk
> incorrectly redefining the default.

But if they want to define the same one, they will try to duplicate as 
it happens (this was how started)

> Because you are right that duplication is not a good thing.  This is a
> tradeoff.  Some components ('xml', 'xslt', 'html' etc) are used
> everywhere, and their definition is typically very stable.  If a
> component is a) used in multiple places, b) has a stable component
> definition, then it should go in sitemap.xmap.
so why forrest.xmap and raw.xmap still defining html generators, can see 
my point about getting things tidier?

when a component definition is move it to sitemap.xmap then users that 
overwrite sitemap will get its site broken, because of that I thought 
that if you put it on sitemap in the first place less you play safe.


View raw message