forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Different views for the same source file
Date Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:42:29 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>Tim Williams wrote:
> ...
>>>It sounds like Cocoon's "Views" would be more appropriate, allowing
>>>you to do something like this:
>>>Your use-case sounds a lot like the description of cocoon views. Maybe
>>>you're not going that route for a reason though?
>>Using a parameter in the URL is not an option since these do not make
>>for valid filenames and therefore it is impossible to generate a static
>>site (a requirement in this use case).
> ...
>>You see, ultimately, I would like to be able to provide a parameterised
>>template that would allow *users* to specifiy what is in their view by
>>editing a config file. I'm just working out where the best palce to do
>>this is. Prior to forrest:views I would, without hesitation, have done
>>it in the sitemap. Now I can see that it may be possible in
>>forrest:views (I'm not saying this is the right thing to do though).
> We already had this discussion (without the views implication part).
> In practice, pdf output, text output, html output, etc are different
> "views" already, and they differentiate only for the extension.
> This can and should be generalized, also because in an ideal web, there
> would be no extension, just a request that is given the best content
> given the client capabilities.
> The result was that to specify manually the output type, the name of the
> file would have to change, in a way similar to what is used by Apache
> HTTPD for multilingual sites.
> Damn, I don't remember the thread, but we had come up with a decision on
> how to define the filename. Rats.

I recall the discussion. You are right what I am proposing here could 
also be applied to that problem, although the use case here is different 
since it is the content not the output format that changes.

In another mail Thorsten suggested a hack for this that will work with 
no code modification. It's worth considering this hack as a solution to 
the "extension" problem described in the discussion in our archives.

I don't have the time to find that discussion right now. Anyone have a 
clearer recollection to be able to search for it quickly (my first few 
attempts failed so it's back to the deadline beating)...


View raw message