Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: forrest:views and xhtml2
From: Thorsten Scherler <thorsten@apache.org>
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4321485C.3020201@apache.org>
References: <1126224563.4983.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <49988844050908181710e02d5f@mail.gmail.com>  <4321402D.7010403@apache.org>
	 <1126253941.7758.19.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <4321485C.3020201@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:15:58 +0200
Message-Id: <1126257358.7758.50.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 09:31 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:56 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > 
> >>Tim Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <thorsten@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi all,
> >>>>why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This seems like an odd question.  
> >>
> >>Hmmm... yes, it is..
> >>
> >>
> >>>Because views are an integral part
> >>>of the TR?   The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete w/
> >>>new internal structure, refined views, integral locationmap usage, and
> >>>streamlined sitemap.
> >>
> >>My take is similar.
> >>
> >>Views are to go into core as soon as they are mature enough.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > If they are not mature enough, why are they going then into this plugin?
> > What are missing to make them mature enough?
> 
> I didn't say they were not mature enough *you* did. I proposed moving 
> them into core immediately after the 0.7 release. I proposed it again 
> about a week ago.
> 

Hmm, who said they have to go into the whiteboard instead of let them in
the core plugins in the first place? If you think they should move does
it mean that we e.g. agree on the naming? Every second mail your are
complaining they are to complicated and need changing, now I want to
discuss this but ...(change my name with yours):
"Honestly Thorsten, sometimes I find it impossible to please you." 


> >>XHTML2 work requires a rewrite of a large proposrtion of core.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > agree, but should we not just focus on the document part first?
> 
> The document part is done, now for the next stage.
> 

Hmm, really? 

> >>Skins are to be deprecated when views go into core.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Should we not state this officially first?
> 
> I suppose we have never called a vote on this buyt I think it is pretty 
> clear to anyone who reads the dev list.
> 

That it is obvious not makes it official.

> >>Doing the XHTML2 work in skins would be wasted effort.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Agree partly, you and me having the same thought of getting away from
> > tab, menu, doc and site processing, but are we *all* agree on that? 
> 
> I think so, all the discussions about forrest:views have been about 
> doing this and the TR states it.
> 

*You* stated that we need to modify the TR if we agree on the
terminology of views. What happened with that?

> However, we never had a vote, so it is not *the* way of doing it yet.
> 

Exactly. I would like to see that is official.

> >>Therefore we use views.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Actually I have problems to follow this logic, see the question above.
> 
> I find it ironic that you now want to talk about things rather than just 
> get on with them. 

Why? I never stated, one do not have to talk. It is about finding the
balance. Going ahead and trying to rewrite the core of forrest because
one person stated in a sentence is not what I meant. Even more if one or
two are trying to do this by themselves. 

It is like comparing apples with peaches (sorry if that not makes sense
in English it is a literal translation).

> I believe this is the right approach, on Forrest 
> Tuesday I did a load of work towards this approach (thanks to the 
> groundwork put in place by others earlier in the day).
> 

I think I did some comments on that in the commits. I do not think the
implementation of views is done well (honestly I think actually is done
really bad). Stating I can fix that is not the way I will go, I do not
feel like cleaning up that code because it would be faster for me to do
it from the ground up.

> The work may not be accepted into core once it is complete, but the code 
> before talk approach it is exactly what you called for in 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=112574531715651&w=2
> 
> For example:
> 
> "It seems we prefer to have endless discussion and well meant
> recommendation that do not contain any specific examples (e.g. code
> discussion). If you want to change something give an example that is
> working and we can discuss this. "
> 
> Honestly Thorsten, sometimes I find it impossible to please you. This 
> may not have been the approach you would have taken, but you were not 
> present and so unable to contribute your thoughts.

"If you want to change something give an example that is working and we
can discuss this."

I am trying to discuss the approach you have chosen right now, or not? I
thing with this approach we doing *too* much extra work and I am not
willing to take that burden, sorry.

> 
> Also from your mail above:
> 
> "If somebody took the time to come up with a solution/recommendation you
> should better spend your time to enhance that instead of recommend
> something different (e.g. with another focus)."
> 
> And a final quote from your mail above:
> 
> "It seems we prefer to have endless discussion and well meant
> recommendation that do not contain any specific examples (e.g. code
> discussion). If you want to change something give an example that is
> working and we can discuss this."
> 
> So lets have specific reasons why this is not the right approach so that 
> we can get on with improving what we have.

See my and your comments on the commits:
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 13:15 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Because, as I said, I wanted to get on with some work and didn't want
> to 
> have to debug code that was not working. Tim said he was going to fix 
> it, but we got onto other things.

We should concentrate doing one step at a time.

On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 13:15 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Because I wanted to work on XHTML2 which was the goal. I thought this 
> was needed since it was in the sitemaps. I don't understand what you 
> have done in the LM fallback resolver, you weren't present and I
> wanted 
> to move forward, at that point I was on my own - go ahead and make
> the 
> necessary changes - you now have code to work with.

If you are not understand something then *please* ask. Like stated above
cleaning this code cost more time then to write it again.


Please let us bring this discussion to a constructive way. 

salu2
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)