forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cyriaque Dupoirieux <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] No new features into skins (was Re: [jira] Closed: (FOR-320) )
Date Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:25:29 GMT
Ross Gardler a écrit :

> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:01 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:08 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
>>>>> Thorsten, you closed the FOR-320 and do not apply the patch on skins.
>>>>> Does that mean that we will not improve skins anymore ?
>>>> I would not see any benefit from applying it to skins. ;-)
>>> The patch already works for skins and there are many people already 
>>> using skins. Views are not ready to replace skins yet (we will need 
>>> pelt in views before that can happen). Please reopen the issue.
I will soon be on this improvment, but I don't understand what is the 
impact of the property now that templates directly generate 
Thorsten, how do you imagine to be multi-skins vith views ?
(That is how do we manage templates, how do we manage fv files
    Maybe use of different directories to store templates ?
    Maybe default.skinname.fv files ?


>> You are as well admin and can reopen the issue (read on before you do).
> Yes I know. But I don't want to go stamping on what you already did 
> without understanding your reasoning, you never know I might agree 
> with you when you explain it to me ;-)
>> Adding *new features* to skins *do not* help to make views ready to
>> replace skins. Did you thought about that? 
> I agree that spending the time adding new features is not a good 
> thing. However this patch already exists. as I said in my mail I agree 
> that it would need to be made configurable, I'm not sure anyone will 
> bother with that, I know I won't). Like I said in my original mail, 
> all I am suggesting is leaving it open so that if a user wants this 
> feature we can point them at the patch, or better still they will find 
> it without asking questions on the lists. If the issue is closed they 
> are unlikely to find it.
>> ...and we *do not* need pelt in views, that is not true. Why do you mean
>> that?
> If you want people to adopt views I strongly recommend that we have a 
> view that looks the same as pelt. Look at the number of sites on our 
> example sites that use it. Most of those sites will will not switch to 
> views unless at the point of switching their site looks the same as it 
> does not. Then some will start playing with views and customising 
> their sites look and feel because they will discover how easy it is.
> Those who are not using pelt are, in most cases, using a customised 
> version of it. If you provide a view that looks like pelt it will be 
> much easier for them to recreate their own site in views. Therefore, 
> they are more likely to migrate to views.
> If you do not provide this migration route most existing users will 
> stick with the deprecated skin for quite some time. There is no 
> motivation to move from it since they are perfectly happy with what 
> they have. The fact that it is cool, whizz bang technology and really 
> easy to customise is irrelevant if they are happy with what they have.
> If we want to bring our existing user base to views we have to make it 
> very easy for them. This means, in my opinion, that we need a view 
> that looks exactly like pelt.
>> Anyway I am -1 to reopen this issue and apply it to skins because that
>> means we have to add yet another property to the skinconf,...
> I said reopen, not necessarily apply it, I agree with David that it 
> would need to be configurable before we applied it and that involves 
> spending time on it, which I agree is not a good thing, our dev time 
> should go into views. However, the fact that we are deprecating the 
> skin does not mean we should put contributions in a place where they 
> will not be seen by existing users.
> Ross

View raw message