forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Juan Jose Pablos <che...@che-che.com>
Subject Re: Forrest: dynamic or static?
Date Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:54:41 GMT
Jeff Turner wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 


I have not fully investigate, but out of the accept string or CGI 
parameter you can specify locale, only if these fail the server locale 
will be used.

So you can specify the locale and save these files either on one 
directory per locale or on the name of the file.

> 
>>>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?

pure content that needs to be threated.

> 
> 
>>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.
> 

There was a vote and that was even. But you remove two days ago so I 
will write up a document and call a vote.

> 
>>>- 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.
> 

which bug? I was tallikg about the problem with lucene, that is relevant 
  for this thread.


> 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.
> 

If we follow that rule we have to remove Lucene.

That is why I am against forrest being as replacement of Norman Walsh 
sdocbook style sheets.

Cheers,
Cheche


Mime
View raw message