forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Docbook as forrest-plugin
Date Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:11:04 GMT
Sean Wheller wrote:
> 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.

Maybe not in the plugins so far developed, but it is likely they will be 
used in other plugins. Remember the Forrest directory structure has 
developed over time and this is what we have modeled the plugin 
directory structure on.

> It 
> made sense in the core, but does it makes sense in a plug-in? The plugins/ 
> already does the work that resources/ did.

Not really, because if you have a docs folder (which a plugin should 
have) that is not a resource for the plugin, so where would it go. 
Likewise for examples, read me, status, config files etc.

> 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 

I think we have slightly different long term views of what may become a 
plugin. Here are a few examples of possible plugins that are not 
"content type classes":

- Lenya Plugin
- Jetty launching code
- Tomcat launching code
- auto-deployment to a running Servlet engine

Ross

Mime
View raw message