forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ferdinand Soethe <samm...@soethe.net>
Subject Re: Splitting build and output directories (was Re: [Proposal] Forrest Terminology)
Date Wed, 11 May 2005 09:55:35 GMT

Ross Gardler wrote:

> Ferdinand Soethe wrote:

>> OK, I wasn't sure if tmp and webapp are used by the servlet
>> exclusively. Is so, sure leavem them in one dir and call it something
>> other than 'build'

> Actually, the broken links file appears in tmp. I've often thought that
> we should move this into the generated docs and add a stylesheet to the
> projectInfo plugin to render it witin an admin section of the docs, 
> perhaps as part of the todo page.

+1 I always wondered why we are no using forrest to make them look
   nice.

 >> Doesn't webapp contain logfiles that you want to look at?

> Yes it does. It'll be difficult for us to find the right dividing line.
> The way I was thinking was that if a document is generated for use 
> outside the Forrest environment then it should go into this "output"
> directory you are proposing (i.e. static pages and war file). This will
> mean there is only one directory to copy, no need to "learn" which one.

I see a problem there because you'd mix log files from dynamic serving
with static output. But we could have the log files remain in the
serverspace and perhaps later on find a cocoon way of serving them as
part of the active site.

> The log files are only of use if being run inside the forrest 
> environment.

Right. See my comment above.

> If we should move those as well, then what about the plugin
> stuff?

Wouldn't it make sense to have the plugins stored in resources? If not
I think they'd be tmp or part of the serverspace.

> By the time we have moved webapp and the plugin stuff there isn't
> really much left in build. Which then begs the question do we need it?

Right. I do want to get rid of it because of the naming overlap wih
building the programm.

>> RG> The static contents should go into another directory, as should the war
>> RG> file if generated for remote hosting.
>> 
>> Yes, that is the most important aspect.

> So it's just where to join draw the line and also to decide if we 
> actually *want* to split these. As I say I am +1 for it, but this is a
> major change and should be taken to a vote as it may have some unforseen
> consequences.

I suggest to join this thread with '[RT] Directory structure and
configuration' and sort out the remaining issues so that we all know
what we are voting for and have resolved as many open question as
possible.

Since this will probably take 0.8 to happen, I think we have the time
and I'm willing to take the discussion to a final proposal and see
that it won't get lost again.


Ferdinand Soethe


Mime
View raw message