forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ferdinand Soethe <samm...@soethe.net>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Forrest Terminology
Date Tue, 10 May 2005 22:53:31 GMT

Ross Gardler wrote:

RG> Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>> 
>> So how about renaming the command line options as follows
>> (alternatives in order of decreasing preference)
>> 
>>         rename          to be
>> 
>>         forrest site => forrest mksite
>>                         forrest static
>>                         forrest makestatic

RG> It's worth reminding ourselves of why Ferdinand feels this renaming is
RG> important. He points out that some users are using Forrest to generate
RG> stuff other than web sites, so "site" can be misleading. This is true
RG> for much of my own work where I am building Learning Objects.

That's true (even though I didn't say that :-)). My reason is to
clarify what these command will actually do, avoid overlapping meanings
with building and compiling the forrest program itself or generic
terms like run.

'forrest site' leaves people guessing what it will do. Although I could
live with it (much better than 'run')

>>         forrest run  => forrest serve
>>                         forrest server
>>                         forrest dynamic

RG> -1 on serve (serve is an adjective)

It is a verb isn't it? What's wrong about using a verb to
start an ongoing process. 'Run' is a verb too isn't it?

RG> I am happy with "run", nevertheless, since I am mostly against

run is my worst nightmare because it creates the fatal double meaning
'run forrest' / 'forrest run' (see my original posting)

RG> forrest servlet

Fine by me. Although many non-technical users probably don't know what
a 'servlet' is. But certainly better than 'run'


RG> I'm +1 one on splitting the stuff generated by building the Forrest
RG> application and the stuff generated by "forrest site" (or whatever it
RG> may become).

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'

RG> But I don't see the need to go further and have all these
RG> different directories. To me webapp and tmp both belong in build since
RG> they are only of interest to forrest itself, not to the end user.

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

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.


--
Ferdinand Soethe


Mime
View raw message