forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Locationmap - because we can doesn't mean we should
Date Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:27:21 GMT
Tim Williams wrote:
> As the subject indicates, I'm thinking we might be using the
> locationmap in some places where sticking to the sitemap would be much
> more readable.  Some of the multiple levels of indirection that's
> going on is down-right confusing.  I'm pretty comfortable reading both
> sitemaps and locationmaps and it's confusing to me.

By "levels of indirection" do you mean the fact that there are a 
wholeload of properties in (like project:content) 
which are then used in the locationmap?

If so these will be removed (there is an issue for this). The idea is 
that the Locationmap becomes *the* configuration file for location 
relate config. The new, XML based config system I have introduced is 
intended to be used for none location related configuration. However, 
this is still to be approved by the community.

With respect to some other aspects you will see in the SVN log from the 
last Forrest Friday that David raised this point and I agreed. What we 
need is some clear guidelines as to when we use the locationmap and when 
we don't.

My proposal for this is that we use the locationmap for any resource 
that we want to expose to other parts of the system. For example, 

> I suggest that locationmap references from the sitemap should be one
> way.  In other words, we should not see "cocoon://some.resource" in a
> locationmap.

+1 - in principle

I can think of no need to do this since the locationmap can use "lm:" 
within itself.

>  It only leads to a tail-chasing sitemap.  I'm not sure
> of a real clear way to explain it but the locationmap should be a
> mapping to the physical resource, whereas, in some of our usage it has
> become an extension of the sitemap processing.

+1 - can you give a few examples of where you feel that the locatinmap 
should not be used (perhaps in the form of patches since we can always 
revert those if others disagree).

> Is this is a reasonable guideline for locationmap usage?

Yes :-)


View raw message