Re: [jira] Commented: (FOR-934) i18n language override menu
Sjur Moshagen wrote: Den 21. sep. 2006 kl. 12.10 skrev Thorsten Scherler: I've not been following the i18n discussions, but I have to admit that when I saw Thorstens comments I wondered why not core?. I'm not doing the work on this so do it however you like. But if you want my (possibly uninformed) opinion then I'd say core is the right place. Hmm, after all the feature contains a dispatcher contract. Further who said core cannot be in a plugin? By definition core is not equal to a plugin. More on this at the end. I think we should split the *whole* core into plugins, that will help to refactor and simplify the code. Now we have spread the e.g. i18n code all over our core. Ugly for understanding, ugly to maintain. If it can work like that then I agree it is a good idea, but... We already agreed that we would need a skin plugin as well, which is as well a core feature, or? No skins are not core features. Core works with XDocs, output plugins provide a final format that is not predefined by core. One does not have to work with any particular output plugin, one can work directly with XDocs, i.e. core. IMO *everything* should go into plugins and the core would be just a couple of sitemaps. Maybe we should restructure the locations for plugins: tree $FORREST_HOME/plugins . |-- core |-- incubator (the plugins from the whiteboard) `-- optional Again, I agree in principle. But will it work... Starting an i18n plugin and move all code to there has much more benefits (keeping documentation and code releated to i18n in one place) and this is why we introduced plugins in the first place, or? Yes, that is why plugins were introduced. And (I'm repeating myself), if it can work I agree it should be a plugin, but... So I am -1 to put it in the core, as long someone names a *good* reason to put it in core? OK, lets consider.. One good reason could be that i18n processing cuts across all other processing - irrespective of which plugins you employ, i18n should work. i18n configuration and support should be centralised and available to all plugins. ... Another reason is to ensure proper and systematic support for i18n in all places. Forrest has been a bit patchy when it comes to i18n support, and still is. This makes for a bad user experiense, both for an advanced user developing web solutions with Forrest, and for end users of that web solution. When you need i18n support, you want it to work everywhere, with all plugins and all your documents, in all running environments. Exactly my thinking. To expand... The problem with i18n is that it is fundamental to the resolution of resources for the *internal* processing of a request. As a result, it touches a great many matches in the sitemap. Now consider that I may want to write an internal plugin that modifies some of the internal matches in our pipelines (like the dispatcher). I need to ensure that I do not break the i18n behaviour of those matches. If they i18n stuff is in core then no problem, I simply override the matches I want and handle i18n accordingly. However, if the i18n handling is in a plugin I have to override those matches too which means that we are creating a dependency between the two plugins. Now we have a situation of a plugin developer who is not using the i18n features creating a plugin that is likely to break the i18n behaviour because they do not address those issues. Furthermore, changes to the i18n plugin will result in changes being needed in all internal plugins. It is true that changes in core i18n handling would also result in the need to change internal plugins. But we expect all plugin maintainers to monitor core, we do not expect the to monitor all plugins (at least I do not expect them to do so). At least this is how it worked with the *old* i18n implementation. If your recent work (which I have not followed closely) removes this dependency then this is not a strong enough argument for you to remove your -1. Like I said before, I'm +0 for core, -0 for a plugin. If my argument above does not stand then go ahead and make the plugin, I trust your judgment. After some consideration, I would actually say that if any feature should stay in the core and not be made a plugin, it is i18n support. To generalise that I would suggest, any feature that works on *internal* processes should be part of core. Any feature that touches only input or output processes should be plugins. Internal plugins were only ever intended [1] to allow the handling of new formats for internal documents, such as IMS Manifests to site.xml. They were not, and in my opinion, should not be intended for core functionality. We can still separate the code by using sitemap mounting, after all, that is what an internal plugin does. Ross [1] this intention was my own, as as original author, as opposed to the community leveraging that code, which has used it to rewrite whole chunks of
Re: [jira] Commented: (FOR-934) i18n language override menu
Sjur Moshagen wrote: Den 21. sep. 2006 kl. 12.10 skrev Thorsten Scherler: I've not been following the i18n discussions, but I have to admit that when I saw Thorstens comments I wondered why not core?. I'm not doing the work on this so do it however you like. But if you want my (possibly uninformed) opinion then I'd say core is the right place. Hmm, after all the feature contains a dispatcher contract. Further who said core cannot be in a plugin? In my previous reply I missed the contains a dispatcher contract part... I got the impression that this code would work with skins too is that not the case? The dispatcher contract should be part of the dispatcher, not part of core, or another internal plugin. We do not have a mechanism for plugin dependencies and I don't think this use case warrants one. If the i18n work is useless without this contract then this is of no use to Forrest users who are not using dispatcher, therefore it is a dispatcher feature. Can it be generalised for skins? Ross
Re: [jira] Commented: (FOR-934) i18n language override menu
Den 22. sep. 2006 kl. 11.58 skrev Ross Gardler: Sjur Moshagen wrote: Den 21. sep. 2006 kl. 12.10 skrev Thorsten Scherler: I've not been following the i18n discussions, but I have to admit that when I saw Thorstens comments I wondered why not core?. I'm not doing the work on this so do it however you like. But if you want my (possibly uninformed) opinion then I'd say core is the right place. Hmm, after all the feature contains a dispatcher contract. Further who said core cannot be in a plugin? In my previous reply I missed the contains a dispatcher contract part... I got the impression that this code would work with skins too is that not the case? The dispatcher contract should be part of the dispatcher, not part of core, or another internal plugin. We do not have a mechanism for plugin dependencies and I don't think this use case warrants one. If the i18n work is useless without this contract then this is of no use to Forrest users who are not using dispatcher, therefore it is a dispatcher feature. Can it be generalised for skins? The work was done within a dispatcher setting, wanting to have a language override menu in the dispatcher. I found it way easier to add a piece of custom data using the theme/contract model of the dispatcher than modifying skins. That said, most of the work can, and probably should, be reused and generalised. Thorsten's observation was: 1) there's a contract, but that's only one document. It is pretty simple. 2) there's a dataURI in the contract, which resolves to some sitemap fragments and some XSLTs 1) is only relevant to the dispatcher, but 2) is basically doing the same as $FORREST_HOME/main/webapp/i18n.xmap - except that I couldn't get it to work, and it does not handle fallback documents at all. I understand Thorsten such that he suggest to turn 2) into a plugin, whereas my intention was to put it in core, essentially replacing or augmenting the present i18n.xmap. So to answer you question: Yes, it definitely can be generalised for skins, I just don't know how it can be integrated with a skin (ie how to modify a skin to include the generated list), therefore I chose dispatcher as my playground:-) When generalising for skins, one should probably have another look at the final processing steps, which is now done in the contract. My idea was that 2) above should provide a simple XML document that could be transformed to whatever is wanted in each case - some users want to leave out the displayed language, other not, some would like to have a list, others a menu, etc. Also, presently i18n markup of the final output is done in the contract - that should also be considered in the generalised version. To sum up: - the contract ( 1) above) should be part of dispatcher - the real extraction and identification of available languages ( 2) above) should be generalised and put somewhere available to both skins and dispatcher - somebody needs to integrate the output of 2) with at least the default skin, and have a nice way to turn it on when requested Sjur
Re: [jira] Commented: (FOR-934) i18n language override menu
Sjur Moshagen wrote: Den 22. sep. 2006 kl. 11.58 skrev Ross Gardler: ... So to answer you question: Yes, it definitely can be generalised for skins, I just don't know how it can be integrated with a skin (ie how to modify a skin to include the generated list), therefore I chose dispatcher as my playground:-) That's cool. Anyone using skins that needs this can do the work themselves. The key is that you have implemented it in such a way that allows them to leverage your contribution. Wherever this goes (plugin or core) we need to create an issue with a link to your notes in this thread so that anyone coming later, who wants to use it in skins can do so. Ross
Re: [jira] Commented: (FOR-934) i18n language override menu
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 16:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: Sjur Moshagen wrote: Den 20. sep. 2006 kl. 17.00 skrev Thorsten Scherler (JIRA): [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-934?page=comments#action_12436238 ] Thorsten Scherler commented on FOR-934: --- I had a quick look at the patch and it would make a good plugin. Since the dispatcher contract is only a small part of the overall code and the code is not limited to the dispatcher it makes sense to create a plugin out of it. wdyt? Sure, that way I guess it would be available both to dispatcher and non-dispatcher users. One could argue that this i18n-functionality should really be part of the core, to make the i18n services of Forrest complete, though. I've not been following the i18n discussions, but I have to admit that when I saw Thorstens comments I wondered why not core?. I'm not doing the work on this so do it however you like. But if you want my (possibly uninformed) opinion then I'd say core is the right place. Hmm, after all the feature contains a dispatcher contract. Further who said core cannot be in a plugin? I think we should split the *whole* core into plugins, that will help to refactor and simplify the code. Now we have spread the e.g. i18n code all over our core. Ugly for understanding, ugly to maintain. We already agreed that we would need a skin plugin as well, which is as well a core feature, or? IMO *everything* should go into plugins and the core would be just a couple of sitemaps. Maybe we should restructure the locations for plugins: tree $FORREST_HOME/plugins . |-- core |-- incubator (the plugins from the whiteboard) `-- optional Starting an i18n plugin and move all code to there has much more benefits (keeping documentation and code releated to i18n in one place) and this is why we introduced plugins in the first place, or? So I am -1 to put it in the core, as long someone names a *good* reason to put it in core? salu2 -- Thorsten Scherler COO Spain Wyona Inc. - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [jira] Commented: (FOR-934) i18n language override menu
Den 21. sep. 2006 kl. 12.10 skrev Thorsten Scherler: I've not been following the i18n discussions, but I have to admit that when I saw Thorstens comments I wondered why not core?. I'm not doing the work on this so do it however you like. But if you want my (possibly uninformed) opinion then I'd say core is the right place. Hmm, after all the feature contains a dispatcher contract. Further who said core cannot be in a plugin? I think we should split the *whole* core into plugins, that will help to refactor and simplify the code. Now we have spread the e.g. i18n code all over our core. Ugly for understanding, ugly to maintain. We already agreed that we would need a skin plugin as well, which is as well a core feature, or? IMO *everything* should go into plugins and the core would be just a couple of sitemaps. Maybe we should restructure the locations for plugins: tree $FORREST_HOME/plugins . |-- core |-- incubator (the plugins from the whiteboard) `-- optional Starting an i18n plugin and move all code to there has much more benefits (keeping documentation and code releated to i18n in one place) and this is why we introduced plugins in the first place, or? So I am -1 to put it in the core, as long someone names a *good* reason to put it in core? One good reason could be that i18n processing cuts across all other processing - irrespective of which plugins you employ, i18n should work. i18n configuration and support should be centralised and available to all plugins. Perhaps a plugin could do this job, but the present i18n sitemap does not work with the dispatcher (I haven't tried with a non-dispatcher setting), and duplicates some of the i18n configuration in the main sitemap. Which kind of proves my point - decoupling i18n processing from the core (sitemap) does not seem like a good idea to me. Another reason is to ensure proper and systematic support for i18n in all places. Forrest has been a bit patchy when it comes to i18n support, and still is. This makes for a bad user experiense, both for an advanced user developing web solutions with Forrest, and for end users of that web solution. When you need i18n support, you want it to work everywhere, with all plugins and all your documents, in all running environments. The bug I reported earlier today is an illustration of my point. After some consideration, I would actually say that if any feature should stay in the core and not be made a plugin, it is i18n support. As I see it, the problems with i18n support in Forrest is symptomatic of its origin: it was added more as an afterthought, and not as a feature built-in from the very beginning. I believe the way to fix it is *not* to remove it from the core, rather the contrary. Just my few cents. Best regards, Sjur
Re: [jira] Commented: (FOR-934) i18n language override menu
Den 20. sep. 2006 kl. 17.00 skrev Thorsten Scherler (JIRA): [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-934? page=comments#action_12436238 ] Thorsten Scherler commented on FOR-934: --- I had a quick look at the patch and it would make a good plugin. Since the dispatcher contract is only a small part of the overall code and the code is not limited to the dispatcher it makes sense to create a plugin out of it. wdyt? Sure, that way I guess it would be available both to dispatcher and non-dispatcher users. One could argue that this i18n-functionality should really be part of the core, to make the i18n services of Forrest complete, though. But I have no strong feelings. Sjur
Re: [jira] Commented: (FOR-934) i18n language override menu
Sjur Moshagen wrote: Den 20. sep. 2006 kl. 17.00 skrev Thorsten Scherler (JIRA): [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-934?page=comments#action_12436238 ] Thorsten Scherler commented on FOR-934: --- I had a quick look at the patch and it would make a good plugin. Since the dispatcher contract is only a small part of the overall code and the code is not limited to the dispatcher it makes sense to create a plugin out of it. wdyt? Sure, that way I guess it would be available both to dispatcher and non-dispatcher users. One could argue that this i18n-functionality should really be part of the core, to make the i18n services of Forrest complete, though. I've not been following the i18n discussions, but I have to admit that when I saw Thorstens comments I wondered why not core?. I'm not doing the work on this so do it however you like. But if you want my (possibly uninformed) opinion then I'd say core is the right place. Ross
Re: [jira] Commented: (FOR-934) i18n language override menu
Ross Gardler a écrit : Sjur Moshagen wrote: Den 20. sep. 2006 kl. 17.00 skrev Thorsten Scherler (JIRA): [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-934?page=comments#action_12436238 ] Thorsten Scherler commented on FOR-934: --- I had a quick look at the patch and it would make a good plugin. Since the dispatcher contract is only a small part of the overall code and the code is not limited to the dispatcher it makes sense to create a plugin out of it. wdyt? Sure, that way I guess it would be available both to dispatcher and non-dispatcher users. One could argue that this i18n-functionality should really be part of the core, to make the i18n services of Forrest complete, though. I've not been following the i18n discussions, but I have to admit that when I saw Thorstens comments I wondered why not core?. I'm not doing the work on this so do it however you like. But if you want my (possibly uninformed) opinion then I'd say core is the right place. Ross +1 to include it in the core...