forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@indexgeo.com.au>
Subject Re: repositories
Date Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:42:42 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Replying a bit late...
> 
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >>Dave Brondsema wrote:
> >>...
> >>
> >>>In
> >>>http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=forrest-dev@xml.apache.org&msgNo=8929
> >>>you suggested a property called 'forrest.extensions.descriptors'.  Do we
want
> >>>these descriptors to apply to more than just skins?  In light of the recent
> >>>discussion of skins, I am inclined to keep skins descriptors seperate from
dtd
> >>>descriptors and any other descriptors we might have.
> >>
> >>Are we talking about the same thing here? As "descriptor" I mean the XML 
> >>file that tells Forrest where to download extensions.
> >>
> > 
> > <snip/>
> > 
> >>I was thinking of changing it to:
> >>
> >><forrest-extensions>
> >>   <extension type="skin"
> >>              name="testskin"
> >>              author="Nicola Ken Barozzi"
> >>              website="http://www.nicolaken.com"
> >>         url="http://www.apache.org/~nicolaken/whiteboard/forrestskins/">
> >>     <description>
> >>       Based on the standard forrest-site skin.
> >>       (Note: This is only a test skin, with trivial changes to
> >>        demonstrate the concept.)
> >>     </description>
> >>   </extension >
> >>   <extension type="dtd"
> >>              name="testdtd"
> >>              author="Nicola Ken Barozzi"
> >>              website="http://www.nicolaken.com"
> >>         url="http://www.apache.org/~nicolaken/whiteboard/forrestdtds/">
> >>     <description>
> >>       Blah
> >>     </description>
> >>   </extension >
> >>
> >>...etc
> >>
> >>Why should we have two different files?
> > 
> > I think that DTD descriptors would need more information.
> > There is no guarantee that all the bit-and-pieces are packed
> > together in one nice compressed archive. This is especially
> > the case for DTDs that we do not manage and cannot re-distribute.
> 
> Hmmm. If we cannot distribute them, then we should not even link to 
> them, as autodownload is basically equivalent to redistribution in most 
> cases. We should not mix things: or we distribute, or we link to their 
> whole package if they ask us for it.
> 
> > I can see DTDs that have the main DTD at one URL and DTD modules
> > at another relative URL. Maybe they do not provide a catalog,
> > so it would need to come from a third-party site.
> 
> I'd say that we stick to redistributable ones for now. 
> Non-redistributable ones will still need to be installed by hand.
>
> > Perhaps we need to define the individual pieces separately in the
> > descriptor with a "from" and "to" and "type" etc. so that the
> > descriptor can tell Ant where to get and put the individual pieces.
> 
> This is redistribution, I'd rather stay away from half-distros.
>
> In any case this system is thought for custom DTD extensions, so the 
> system will anyway get the whole package from a place that distributes 
> them and that agrees that we link to them.

I agree with the gist of what you are saying.

However, i wanted to provide the ability for a project to
make a local descriptor to pull together the scattered bits.

The use-case that i was trying to describe is where a government
organisation has published a DTD (and supporting bits) but did not
also package it up in a nice tar.gz that Forrest can use. Now that
the funding has gone, there might not even be a way for us to zip
it for them to add to their website.

Okay, this is way more complicated, so we should stick with
the pre-packaged method for now.

--David




Mime
View raw message