forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Forrest: dynamic or static?
Date Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:56:49 GMT
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:25:49PM +0200, Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> >I see we now have i18n'ed menus, where the language is chosen based on
> >the locale of the requester.
> >
> >This feature is useless if you're rendering a static site with the CLI.
> >The requester's locale will be that of the local machine.
> >
> 
> That is not true!

Okay, say I want to produce a site that has both English and German
contents, like jakarta-poi.  I need a set of English pages with an
English menu, and German pages with a German menu.  How does the current
i18n support help us towards that goal?

> >Then we have:
> >
> > - The addition of XSP.  Lots of uses with dynamic Forrest, none (that I
> >   know of) for a statically rendered site.
> 
> I gave you an example of XSP use for static rendered site.

You said you wanted to use it for retrieving data out of a database.
What kind of data?  What percentage of Forrest users do you think share
this use-case?

> Plus this was requested by users!

About 4 users in total (including yourself).  I'm sure they all have
legitimate reasons for wanting XSP capabilities, but I don't think the
vast majority of Forrest users share this need.  Call a vote if you think
otherwise.

> > - Lucene integration.  As it exists in CVS, it screws up statically
> >   rendered sites, so is disabled.
> >
> 
> Hold on here... The idea was to be disabled by default, This needs more
> investigation.

Please do.

> >Being a Cocoon distribution, there is a huge amount of stuff that Forrest
> >*could* include.  I think we need to draw a line, define what Forrest
> >actually is, and stick to that.
> >
> >The line I propose is that Forrest should be regarded as an offline site
> >generation tool that happens to have an online mode for rapid page
> >development.  There should be no features _unusable_ from a static site.
> 
> The fact that there is a bug does not mean that we need to change our 
> strategy.

The bug is irrelevant to this thread.

> >For especially useful features, like searching, we can bend the rule and
> >have online/offline equivalents (lucene and google).
> >
> 
> -1 The fact that some features can be done only in live mode does not 
> mean that we need to restict ourselves.
> 
> 
> >I can demonstrate why I take such a hardline stance with a small
> >benchmark:
> >
> 
> Sure, but did you took in account how long took a whole web site to be 
> render?, so If I made a modification, I need to wait more than 0.2 
> seconds to see the results.

Read what I wrote:

  "The line I propose is that Forrest should be regarded as an offline
  site generation tool **that happens to have an online mode for rapid
  page development**."

The ability to run a Forrest site dynamically during development is a
huge advantage.  Nobody is suggesting getting rid of it.  I'm suggesting
that as a rule, we do not include features that 1) *only* work online, 2)
are used by only a few users.

--Jeff

...
> 
> Cheers,
> Cheche
> 

Mime
View raw message