forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cyriaque Dupoirieux <Cyriaque.Dupoiri...@pcotech.fr>
Subject Re: [RT] Why using views - in comparison with "old fashion" skins - usecase i18n.
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:37:11 GMT
Hi,

    I think - like Ross - than Views are a very clean solution to many 
things.
    My main problem with skins is exactly what you said :

    * Source code may be duplicated depending on where it is used,
    * Granularty is complex problem which do not interest skins. The
      result is that we have to copy large templates in order to change
      a small part
          o for instance I had to copy the whole *site* template of the
            pelt skin in order to add a line in my header...

    The definition and the use of contracts is not - at the moment - 
very clear in my mind but I 'm sure it is way we have to work.

    Hope a simple documentation will be writen soon !

Cordialement,
Cyriaque,



Thorsten Scherler a écrit :

>hello devs,
>
>I just work on the i18n integration for pelt and crossed again the whys
>for using views. ;-)
>
>The case is that the site2xhtml.xsl has a lot of repeating code. For
>example the "last publish"-contract can be found 2 times in the code:
> @@ -236,9 +241,9 @@
> <xsl:comment>+
>     |end Endtabs
>     +</xsl:comment>
>-            <DEFANGED_script language="JavaScript"
>type="text/javascript"><![CDATA[<!--
>-              document.write("Published: " + document.lastModified);
>-              //  -->]]></script>
>+            <DEFANGED_script type="text/javascript"><![CDATA[<!--
>+document.write("]]><i18n:text >Last
>Published:</i18n:text>&#160;<![CDATA[ " + document.lastModified);
>+//  -->]]></script>
>         </div>
> 
> <xsl:comment>+
>@@ -278,9 +283,9 @@
>     <div id="footer">
> <xsl:comment>+
>     |start bottomstrip
>-    +</xsl:comment>
>+    +</xsl:comment>
>   <div class="lastmodified"><DEFANGED_script
>type="text/javascript"><![CDATA[<!--
>-document.write("Last Published: " + document.lastModified);
>+document.write("]]><i18n:text >Last
>Published:</i18n:text>&#160;<![CDATA[ " + document.lastModified);
> //  -->]]></script></div>
>
>This is not the only contract that is double in the code. The problem
>with that is that I need to search the code for each caption and
>senseless repeat the maintainment step of adding the <i18n:text/>-tags. 
>
>Now we can enhance the maintainment for the future and we started to
>give this code snippets contracts names. This naming enables us to keep
>the contract separate from the position code itself. In xsl you would
>simply do:
>1) replace the script by <xsl:call-template name="last-published"/>
>2) add <xsl:template name="last-published">
>    <DEFANGED_script type="text/javascript"><![CDATA[<!--
>document.write("]]><i18n:text >Last
>Published:</i18n:text>&#160;<![CDATA[ " + document.lastModified);
>//  -->]]></script>
>  </xsl:template>
>
>This allows us in a next maintainment just change the code of
><xsl:template name="last-published"/> and apply it in any position where
>it is placed. Now this refactoring of the site2xhtml.xsl is exactly what
>I am doing in views. 
>
>In the viewHelper.xhtml plugin I
>added /resources/templates/last-published.ft. 
>In this file you can find:
>   <xsl:template name="last-published-body">
>      <DEFANGED_script type="text/javascript"><![CDATA[<!--
>document.write("]]><i18n:text >Last
>Published:</i18n:text>&#160;<![CDATA[ " + document.lastModified);
>//  -->]]></script>
>    </xsl:template>
>
>The only different between the site2xhtml.xsl and the ft is the name
>addition "-body". That leads to the template attribute @body="true" and
>@head="false". In xhtml a contract can add content to the <body/> or/and
><head/> part of <html/>. 
>
>/*sidenote*/
>We decided to drop the css definition within the template in favor of a
>default set of css that will come with the view. I will delete the
>corresponding code soon. CSS stylesheet patches very welcome. ;-)
>
>The above said prepares to answer the question why the development with
>views is more efficient in maintainment and more flexible in comparison
>to "old fashion skins" in the long run.
>
>In the site2xhtml.xsl there are fixed places for the contracts. There
>are some mechanism like e.g.:
><xsl:if test="$config/search and not($config/search/@box-location =
>'alt')"/> to influence the output but a skin will never be that flexible
>to place a contract where ever you want in the output. 
>
>There is where the new forrest:view config-DSL comes in handy. Instead
>of defining alternative positions in the skin (which normally as well
>means to extend the skinconf.dtd) it lets the user/skin-developer decide
>where to place the contracts with a configuration file.
>
>I had to extend the default.fv with a new line:
><forrest:contract name="last-published"/>
>to activate the new contract in any place of the output that I want. As
>well it is possible to place the contract as much as I want.
>
>Refactoring site2xhtml.xsl has similarities of generating contracts for
>the view plugin. The biggest different is that we extract the code
>snippet in another file and not the site2xhtml.xsl and winning the
>flexibility of placing it where we want.
>
>That prevent as well the situation where you have to "rip parts out of
>the skin" if you do not want them. In views you just do not use the
>contract and it will not be outputed.
>
>salu2
>  
>

Mime
View raw message