Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: svn commit: r520650 - in
	/forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins:	org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.doap/
	org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.dispatcher/
	org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.solr/
	org.apache.forrest.themes.core/themes/common/fo/ org.apache.forrest....
From: Thorsten Scherler <thorsten@apache.org>
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4601120E.4030404@pcotech.fr>
References: <20070320231748.EEDA71A9846@eris.apache.org>
	 <4600F480.5060906@pcotech.fr> <4600FB5A.3070802@apache.org>
	 <4600FFAE.7090800@pcotech.fr> <1174471790.6521.26.camel@cartman>
	 <4601120E.4030404@pcotech.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:31:24 +0100
Message-Id: <1174512684.6143.14.camel@cartman>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 12:07 +0100, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
> le 21/03/2007 11:09 Thorsten Scherler a écrit :
> > Hmm, since we decided to change the name of tiles to panels (see the
> > thread on dev) I did expect that this commit would have addressed this
> > issue as well.
> >
> > Let me explain why the commit is not really how we want it.
> >
> > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 15:50 +0000, Ross Gardler wrote: 
> >   
> >> Why is common-fo.vt.xml in html directory rather than the fo directory?
> >>     
> >
> > This should go into the "panels" directory of the theme directory since
> > it is an "old" tiles.
> >
> > Panels do not care which contracts they contain. Meaning that for
> > internal processing in the dispatcher pelt-css.vt.xml will not be
> > treated different then common-fo.vt.xml. 
> >
> > The fo/css in the naming only shows which aggregation of contract and
> > hook (in short panel) are addressed.
> >
> > Panels do not belong in the html nor in the fo nor in css nor in ....
> > directory but in a directory on its on like e.g.
> > themes/pelt/panels
> > themes/common/panels
> >   
> Humm, I agree with the definition of panels and with the fact that vt 
> should be changed.
> I don't see the benefit to store them in a specific directory, because I 
> have no example where a panel can be used for two different formats.

One can think of one, but you have a point that panels are likely to be
format dependent in their usage (not by definition).

> Why don't we name them with the .panel extension and store them in the 
> format directory ?

Imagine you have a bigger side and have heaps of panels, don't you think
that keeping them in the root folder of a theme (e.g. theme/common) can
become pretty messy?

> If we look at the css common directory we have a mix of different kind 
> of files :
> theme/common/css
>   |-- basic.css                           (a real source file to be used 
> as it is)
>   |-- branding-generic-css.ft      (a contract...)
>   |-- ...
>   |-- profiling.css.xslt                 (a stylesheet - which I'm not 
> sure is very useful...)
>   |-- ...
> 
> It doesn't strike me to have panels in there :
>   |-- common.panel
> 

That mean we would introduce another extension that we need to add to
the svn configs. I would rather use *.panel.xml.

wdyt?

salu2

-- 
Thorsten Scherler                                 thorsten.at.apache.org
Open Source Java & XML                consulting, training and solutions