On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Jeremy Quinn wrote: > At 1:52 am +0100 7/3/02, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > >Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >> > >> I was about to commit the POI stuff, but then I felt a bit uneasy with how > >> the current build is organized. > > <snip/> > > >I don't like the markup semantics but I see your point and I like the > >concept. > > > >> 2. make all samples to be mounted in a "samples" dir, each with its > >> subsitemap. This could make it easy to not put them in when there are > >> optional components not presents, or also use Cocoon easily without the > >> samples. > > > >I like this so far. > > > >> 3. Structure the build as in Centipede or Forrest by using external > >> entities, by dividing the build targets in many .xpart files. Forrest has an > >> example of this in CVS. > > > >I don't like this, we should stay away from entities as much as > >possible.[also true for forrest, I'd love that to be changed] > > > >What do others think about this? > > Regardless of the particular issue of reorganisation proposed by Nicola Ken > Barozzi and Stefano's response, which I agree with ..... I think the > samples in the main sitemap would definitely be improved by being seperated > into several sub-sitemaps. The main sitemap is far too complicated, it > makes Cocoon look more complicated than it really is to use!
Good point. As a general usage pattern to show how stuff can be implemented with the current instrumentation it would make sense to have the root sitemap only mounts all examples. The Cocoon samples site have grown to a point where this will make absolutely sense. Giacomo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
