forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Splitting build and output directories (was Re: [Proposal] Forrest Terminology)
Date Wed, 11 May 2005 09:36:59 GMT
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> RG> Ferdinand Soethe wrote:


> 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'

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.

 > 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 
 > 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?

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.

The log files are only of use if being run inside the forrest 
environment. If we should move those as well, then what about the plugin 
stuff? 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?

> 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 


View raw message