forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: matching order for image resources
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:23:27 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
>> I'm struggling determining whether the matching order of images can be
>> different from xml specifically with respect to locationmaps.  Should
>> images *always* resolve through locationmaps as a last resort the same
>> as xml?   
> We should have two locationmaps: Forrest's and the user's.
> The user's takes precedence on Forrest's.

I'd like to avoid a Forrest locationmap at this stage. I do think there 
is value in one, but I'd rather get the user locationmap working first, 
this is what adds the immediate value to the user. The Forrest one only 
really adds value to us devs and I'm not yet sure how far the Forrest 
locationmap should go, that is I am not sure yet, how much of the logic 
should be moved out of the sitemap into the locationmap. We need to be 
careful not to simply create *another* config file.

To be honest, I'm not yet convinced we need a Forrest locationmap. I 
think this will be the subject of quite some dscussion, but I'd rather 
enter the discussion once we have done plenty of experiments with a user 

>> For example, the "images/**.*" match currently uses
>> otherwise to match to an apparent backward compatibility set of
>> images.  It seems to make sense in these cases that locationmap
>> resolved images would resolve in a higher priority than the current
>> otherwise.  

Given that the test for the existence of a resource in the users 
locationmap may be expensive, i.e. it may request a remote resource, I 
think it should be the last test in the chain.

When we come to refactor the sitemaps either with a Forrest locationmap 
or for the 1.0 release we can reconsider this decision.


View raw message