forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gav...." <brightoncomput...@brightontown.com.au>
Subject RE: [RT] A new Forrest implementation?
Date Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:51:20 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, 18 August 2006 8:11 PM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [RT] A new Forrest implementation?
> 
> Gav.... wrote:
> >>- XHTML2 as internal format
> >
> >
> > Cool, does it work good?
> 
> Yes it works like a charm thanks to the work we already did in the
> aborted XHTMl2 plugin. I've reused the sample document you created and
> the stylesheet someone found for that work (sorry I can't remember who).
> 
> It needs more testing of course...
> 
> >>If we have a mime-type that gives us enough information it will use that
> >>(i.e. an OOo document). If not it will try looking ahead into the
> >>contents of the file until it has enough info. For example:
> >>
> >>while ((numRead = reader.read(buf)) != -1 && mimeType == null) {
> >>   String readData = String.valueOf(buf, 0, numRead);
> >>   fileData.append(readData);
> >>   buf = new char[1024];
> >>   if (fileData.toString().contains("<?xml")) {
> >>         String type = getXMLDocumentType(fileData.toString());
> >>	doc = new XMLSourceDocument(fileData.toString(), reader);
> >>   }
> >>}
> >>
> >
> >
> > Not totally foolproof this, that declaration could be in .html files,
> .php
> > files could possibly contain no PHP whatsoever (useless waste but I've
> see
> > it).
> 
> Yes, of course, remember this is just a proof of concept protoype it's
> not supposed to be complete.
> 
> In order to support other inputs we need to add the necessary processing
> to this factory (actually, it would be done by a config file, but that's
> all for future work on a real implementation if we decide to go for it).
> 
> >>- decide if we should continue experimenting along this line.
> >
> >
> > Sounds good to me, I'd like to see what you've got so far, so I can play
> and
> > judge better. Can you put in in whiteboard, or would a branch be
> > needed/preferred, either way is good for me.
> 
> I'm certainly willing to put it in the whiteboard but I'm not sure
> whether I should or not.
> 
> As a community, we do not have a consensus yet and I don't really want
> to go throwing code in to the mix until we have that consensus. I don't
> want to encourage anyone to work on this code at the expense of our
> existing core, we are thin on the ground as it is.
> 
> That being said, it may be helpful to see the code in order to bring
> about a consensus. What do others think? (I'm particularly interested in
> objections, I suspect there will be people who think the risk of
> splitting the community is too great at this stage of the discussion).
> 
> Ross

This is true, take my comments as my +1 to do that. There is a but, we
should not hold off on getting the 0.8 release out ( or 1.0 as you mentioned
previously), I think it would be good to get a release out and if need be we
can start with a clean slate with this in whiteboard.

Gav...

> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.2/422 - Release Date: 8/17/2006



Mime
View raw message