forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [RT] Writing generated page to disk in "forrest run"
Date Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:44:36 GMT
David Crossley wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>David Crossley wrote:
>>>Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>If they have other forms of the document e.g.
>>>*.pdf or *.pod or *.txt etc. then those duplicate
>>>formats would not be generated, because links
>>>would not be followed.
>>Good point.
>>That will have to be addressed. Couple of options:
>>I think that should be fairly easy to do by flagging links that are 
>>created by output plugins in the skin/theme with a specific class. The 
>>tool can then look for such links in the page and publish them (doesn't 
>>work is a user manually adds such a link)
>>Assume page is foo.html, then scan the page for links to "foo.*" and 
>>render those pages too. Still doesn't work is the different format is 
>>linked from another site.
>>Interim conclusion:
>>We need to provide site validation tools that check all local links in 
>>the locally built site. These could be run on a deploy command.
> We already have that ... 'forrest site' or the forrestbot "build"
> workstage.

exactly, see the first mail in this thread, I'm proposing integrating 
the forrestbot webapp in "forrest run" ;-)

> I am becoming wary of this proposed new ability.
> Perhaps okay if we have a loud FAQ about the limitations
> and encourage its use only for a quick re-build of
> the current page, i.e. do not make it the primary way
> of working.

Agreed - in fact I was thinking that when you save a page the browser is 
redirected to a report page that says how likely it is that your site is 
still synchronised. We could keep a timestamp of the last time the site 
has been built, keep a count of the number of pages individually saved, 
check timestamps of navigation and theme files against the last build 
timestamp etc.

> I am also wary about turning Forrest into a poor person's
> content management system by using htmlarea and such.

I agree I think we should deprecate the htmlArea plugin (it probably 
doesn't work anymore anyway). What other plugins are there that cause 
concern about being a poor mans CMS?


> -David

View raw message