forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thorsten Scherler <thors...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] New format for skinconf
Date Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:27:27 GMT
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 13:42 +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 08:20 +0200, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> > 
> >>[Sorry if I completly miss the point but as skinconf bothered me some hours a

> >>few weeks ago I can't resist on commenting on this]
> > 
> > :) Cheers for your comments, you hit the nail on the head!
> 
> Concur. It's very nice to hear from you here :-)
> 
> ...
> >>So far this isn't really difficult. But, it becomes interesting if you want to

> >>have all those repos having the same look without manually copy files around
but 
> >>this is a problem as skinconf contains project specific information and 
> >>information how the final docs are styled.
> >>
> >>I ended up in using XML entities 
> 
> IIUC it's about sharing the skinconf between projects.
> 
> >>I haven't had a look at plugins yet (sorry, I'm still using Forrest 0.6) - if

> ...
> > I share your opinion that in the current skinconf we are mixing project
> > specific information and look & feel. That was one point to start the
> > discussion again.
> > 
> > Having your link in mind we have 
> >   &heading; 
> >   &extracss;
> >   &colors;
> >   &pdf;
> >   &credits;
> > 
> > as common components. IMO this components should be defined in a global
> > file. Besides this global file we can have view specific configuration.
> > I personally see the cocoon blocks a specific view on the cocoon
> > project(documentation). 
> 
> It seems that the separation that you are proposing is more theorical 
> than practical, as it does not solve an actual need.


...right now I have not implement it that's why it is theoretical but I
am SURE that is as well practical. ;-)

Hmm, lets compare your solution with mine. 

> Also IIUC this is not what it's about... that is sharing part of the 
> skinconf between many Forrest-based sites.
> 

Yeah, if you define a default (global) skinconf where you keep all the
default values then there is no need for forrest-based sites to even
have one. They will use the fall-back skinconf that you will have to
define for them.

> Instead, I would concentrate on one or more of the following:
> 
>   - having a sort of "import" of the values of another skinconf, as 
> Ant's <import>. In this way a skinconf can use the values from another 
> one, and add or redefine just the values it needs.
> 

Ok, I am talking about the same, only that I prefer to split the
properties of skinconf in different files and then only override this
files. 

>   - making a skin have a default skinconf that can be overridden: in 
> this way, all Apache could have an Apache skin with the copyright 
> already set, and a consistent look;
> 

Hmm, in 0.8 we will not have the traditional skins that we have right
now. They become views based on contracts. This contracts can be written
the way you just suggested. Create a default copyright contract that can
be used apache wide.

...BUT I would not suggest to keep it in the skinconf. The skinconf is
to inflexible due to the fact that it is configuring the WHOLE site and
not only on a per page/document base. What would you do when you have a
one page or a couple of pages with different copyright notices?

>   - making it possible to render in a single site many subsites together.
> 

That is IMO another problem and has no direct connection with the
skinconf. ...but thinking about it a little bit more, the view concept
let you have different "skinned" pages (or subsites) within on project
(if you talking about that).

salu2
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)


Mime
View raw message