forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: views dependency
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:47:15 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> ...
>>The problem
>>(like you mentioned above) is that they are depend on each other and it
>>is quite a pain to read the docu of all the plugins involved right now.
>>I reckon I should add it to the how-to then we have a central place to
>>document views.
> IMO the views are part of core Forrest, they are not plugins.
> This would solve both dependency and documentation problems.

I agree that the controlling portion of the view is in fact part of core 
(i.e. the stuff in o.a.f.p.internal.view). However, the parts that 
define the contracts (i.e. o.a.f.p.output.viewHelper.xhtml) are not, 
there may be different versions of these, like we have different skins 
at present.

However, they should not be called "plugins", that will serve to 
confuse. A plugin adds functionality, it does not change the look of the 
final document. I think they need to be called "views" (a name that will 
be freed up if we move the view "plugin" into core).

Ultimately, what I think would be great to see is the provision of each 
contract as an independently downloadable unit. Views (aka skins) would
then define a collection of related contracts via the default.fv file.

Allowing contracts to be downloaded and used independently provides a 
set of building blocks for view designers. For example, someone could 
choose to have the AJAX enabled search contract from the (fictitious) 
fully dynamic view, but the static navigation menu contract from another 

With careful CSS design the look and feel of the resulting page will be 

I suspect that this is what Thorsten has had in mind all along, I'm only 
seeing it now I have had chance to have a little play.


View raw message