forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Wheller <s...@inwords.co.za>
Subject Re: Docbook as forrest-plugin
Date Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:27:13 GMT
On Monday 25 October 2004 04:11, Ross Gardler wrote:
> What is your reasoning for using this directory layout rather than the
> one currently adopted. Unless there is a good reason it would make much
> more sense to stick to the same format as all the other plugins, and
> Forrest core itself - it will be less confusing for developers dropping
> in on the code.

1. shorter paths, fewer folders. My thinking is to only use a folder when it 
is required. Seemed to me that resources/ was not doing anything much. It 
made sense in the core, but does it makes sense in a plug-in? The plugins/ 
already does the work that resources/ did. Plugins/ contains folders named by 
the plug-in e.g. openoffice, feeder, IMSmanifest, docbook, SVG, WSDL, dia 
etc. It just made sense that the resources for a plugin are contained in the 
plugins/[plugin-name]/

2. IMO plug-in is an object that adds a content type class, configuration, and 
resources to forrest. I would actually change the directory name from plugins 
to frameworks. The plug-in architecture looks to the frameworks/ for 
frameworks.
frameworks/
frameworks/catalog.xml
frameworks/sitemap.xml
frameworks/docbook
frameworks/fo
frameworks/svg
frameworks/tei
frameworks/wsdl
frameworks/openoffice
frameworks/feeder
frameworks/IMSmanifest
frameworks/SVG
frameworks/WSDL
frameworks/dia

-- 
Sean Wheller
Technical Author
sean@inwords.co.za
http://www.inwords.co.za

Mime
View raw message