On 1/17/07, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 09:14 +0000, Ross Gardler wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Author: thorsten
> > Date: Sun Jan 14 12:48:45 2007
> > New Revision: 496145
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=496145
> > Log:
> > Allowing plugins to provide tiles.
>
> I'm assuming this is tiles in Dispatcher speak not tiles as in Apache
> Tiles. If this is so I think we ought to find a different name for it in
> Dispatcher, I can already "hear" the confused user questions as a result
> of a Google search.
Would be templates better?
They are "sub-structurer" to easier provide grouped contracts
(functionality) and hooks (design) on a plugin/project/theme base.
I will call it x till we find a better name for tiles.
<jx:import uri=cocoon://prepare.tiles.solrbar/>
would become
<jx:import uri=cocoon://prepare.x.solrbar/>
I further suggest to get them out of the html contract dir.
tree resources/themes/common/html/
resources/themes/common/html/
|-- solr-actionbar.ft
|-- solr-add.ft
|-- solr-search.ft
`-- solrbar.vt.xml
They do not belong in there. If you look in the core themes you can find
common-fo.vt.xml in the html dir of the common theme. This x does not
provide a group of html but fo contracts!
IMO they should be stored in resources/themes/common/x and stripped from
".vt" (does not makes sense anymore - vt stands for view tiles).
tree resources/themes/common/x
resources/themes/common/x
`-- solrbar.xml
wdyt?
Please we need some suggestions to replace x with better naming.
I'll add "panel" for consideration.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Apanel
I can't think of any conflicts with other popular technology right now
other than awt.Panel.
--tim
