forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: matching order for image resources
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:43:24 GMT
Ross Gardler wrote:
> 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 have no problem with this.

> 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 
> locationmap.

No problem. You will see the value when will try to refactor the 
image-svg-png-etc stuff, that is full of redundancy. The locationmap can 
greatly improve the code.

>>> 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.

It's not that important ATM, I concede.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message