forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Locationmap now works for repositories
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:39:44 GMT
Tim Williams wrote:
> I'm thinking my latest round of questions seem to have gotten lost... 

Hmmmm. I typed a reply to this this morning. However, it doesn't appear 
in my sent box let alone the archives. I was offline at the time so 
maybe I clicked the wrong button and deleted it rather than "send later".

Oh well, here goes take 2...


>>>>of course site.xml and tabs.xml which are handled differently than
>>>>other content in xdocs.
>>>
>>>They are, but they need not be. This is something that needs to be
>>>addressed. We should be able to get site.xml and tabs.xml from the
>>>locationmap source too.
>>
>>I've got both of these working with locationmap now, let me know if
>>that's preferable. This makes me wonder how "default" locationmaps
>>will be set up.  Is there a concept of fallback locationmaps sorta
>>like sitemaps do (e.g., allow project overrides to forrest
>>pre-defined)?

The fallback position at present is to use the local file system. Is 
there a need for a more expressive fallback mechanism in the locationmap?


>>I guess the question is: have you a grander design yet
>>for how these things will actually work when it comes to *all*
>>resources?

No, I only just figured out how they work, so no "grand designs" yet. I 
am hoping you can help me there.

>>It seems like this idea of overriding the forrest
>>locationmap settings with the project locationmap settings seems
>>necessary?

Can you give us a use case. I'm having trouble thinking of one.

>>>>Also, are you looking into expanding it for resource (graphics
>>>>specifically) content too?
>>>
>>>Yes.

...

>>Having looked at resources.xmap though,
>>I agree, it is going to be a big job.  Before looking more at it
>>though, I'd like to get your vision of how it should work.  Seems to
>>me there needs to be some sort of forrest:locationmap and
>>project:locationmap concepts in place first?  In other words as the
>>locationmap concept is carried over to forrest assets as well as
>>project assets, should each not have a overridable locationmap?

I'm not at all sure I am following you. Whilst it is a reasonably big 
job, I was thinking that all we need to do is provide the same kind of 
mechanism that we have provided for XML docs. That is, if we don't find 
it either locally, or via the plugins then we try and find it via the 
locationmap. If we still fail then we throw an error.

The only difference in this between current and future behaviour is the 
addition of the last check via the locationmap.

Am I missing something?

Ross

Mime
View raw message