Sounds good. Is that a strategy that you would see in other websites, or does it differ from project to project?
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 4:39:16 PM UTC-6, Rob Gaston wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > That's really just an organizational thing - there are no functional > advantages/disadvantages. Here's the rule of thumb I've used: > > - if the plugin consists of just a javascript file, put it in > media/js/plugins/ > - if the plugin consists of just a css file, put it in > media/css/plugins/ > - all other plugins (ie, those consisting of more than just a single > javascript or css file) should go in their own folder inside the > media/plugins/ folder (eg media/plugins/openlayers/) > > Perusing the code, you'll find that this rule is not always adhered to, > but I would encourage that as a basic approach. > > Cheers, > - Rob > > > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 2:14:08 PM UTC-8, Adam Cox wrote: >> >> Hi Rob thanks for the reply. You're right about map tiles, I'm just >> interested in the forms right now so I hadn't thought of that. I haven't >> used TileStache, but I have looked it up and it certainly would be a nice >> thing to integrate... >> >> I went back through the links in base.htm, and I'm pretty sure I had just >> left out the closing tag in the pre_require <script> link. Now it all >> works fine. >> >> One question about organization though: looking through the static >> directories I see situations where plugins are organized by file type >> (e.g., media/css/plugins/file.css and media/js/plugins/file.js) and others >> where they are just grouped in a single directory called media/plugins. >> Are there structural advantages/disadvantages to either of those methods? >> >> Thanks for the help! >> Adam >> >> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 12:42:20 PM UTC-6, Rob Gaston wrote: >>> >>> Hi Adam, >>> >>> Sounds like you've covered most of the items that come straight to mind. >>> >>> One that I don't see addressed here is map tiles - that is, arches >>> doesn't (yet) have an integrated tile server, so thus far all >>> implementations that I'm aware of rely on pulling tiles over the web from >>> Bing/MapBox/etc... As such, you'll need to provide tiles locally somehow >>> and use that to drive your basemaps instead of the default (Bing). There >>> are a bunch of ways you can do this, but one might want to consider >>> TileStache <http://tilestache.org/>, as it is python based and might >>> integrate nicely with arches. I think an example tile server integration >>> would be a great thing for the project/community. >>> >>> When you say "the pages still don't fully load", can you please >>> elaborate on the symptoms you are seeing? Screenshots (or links?) are >>> always helpful. >>> >>> - Rob >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-8, Adam Cox wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello! I'm interested in getting Arches to work completely offline. >>>> I've done the following: >>>> >>>> Install everything locally. >>>> >>>> Copied templates/base.htm to my app and downloaded all of the css and >>>> js resources to the app's media directory, and changed the links/paths to >>>> the appropriate local location. I believe that worked fine. >>>> >>>> Commented out the call to Google fonts that occurs in app.css. >>>> >>>> But I'm still missing something: the pages still don't fully load. >>>> Strangely, there are no js errors in the console, and no python errors in >>>> the dev server. >>>> >>>> Any ideas? >>>> >>>> -- -- To post, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]. For more information, visit https://groups.google.com/d/forum/archesproject?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Arches Project" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
