I really thought whether or not to answer this thread. On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 11:39 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 18:20 -0400, Gregor J. Rothfuss wrote: > > ... > > >>are you suggesting that it is easier to learn and use a DSL than to use > >>java? i don't buy that, sorry. the DSL is just a layer of indirection, > >>the real implementation (at least in lenya, dunno about forrest) will be > >>java classes anyway, so why not try to have a sensible API rather than > >>hide it behind a bunch of xml? > >> > > > > > > That user that do not have to learn java to extend and use > > lenya/forrest. They want to configure and not program. > > I think it is important to understand that at present only Thorstens > eyes have touched most of the views plugin (that is why it is in the > whiteboard). Last time another dev was able to find the time to > understand what Thorsten was doing we ended up simplifying a rather > complex XML structure to a really simple one that did the same job, far > more efficiently. >
¿? Are you talking about Diwaker Gupta? If so then what you wrote is not true! I added CSS support to then decide to get rid of it again. ...and about which complex structure are you takling about? > What I am saying is that when you examine an example from Thorsten in > the mailing list it tends to be hugely complex. ¿? ...again do you consider the fv markup as complex? It contains in the core 2 basic tags: forrest:hooks (will be transformed in div) and forrest:contracts (which is a capsuled piece of code from the former site2xhtml.xsl). I *really* do not understand what is complex. On the other hand to create a new skin I consider complex and inflexible. You have to get into 2-3 xsl stylesheets and do all changes there regardless whether you "only" want to move e.g. the logo. In fv that is dead simple!!! > Thorsten has been > working away at this for some time and is in it far deeper than anyone else. > Yeah, because I am using the concept of dispatcher view in some customer projects with success. > I have a feeling that once we get the chance to review his work the > config schema and configuration technique will be massively improved. As > you know, that is the way of Open Source. > Hmm, the only thing I consider to be improved is the processing behind the scenes for xhtml. The scheme is *simple* (see above) and the technique, yeah it needs a clearer separation. > All Thorsten is doing is providing a configuration file. However, I do > agree that at present that config file is far too complex, Please show me where the config file is complex!!! > if the > Forrest devs (well, me at least) can't understand it then it is not > suitable for use. ¿? > > So in conclusion, I agree with Gregors concerns, but I also agree with > the direction Thorsten is trying to go in. > Actually that is the reason why I am proposing that forrest is *not* officially developing views anymore. I do not see that it get accepted better said it is causing confusion and concerns by user. I happily remove all code regarding views from forrest if the forrest pmc will positively vote for it. If this happens I will open an OS-project and develop it elsewhere. I will provide in such a project support for lenya and forrest but this would be independently from both projects. Forrest can keep on using skins with all the downside that they have (see the recent threads on user/dev). They are accepted. ;-) salu2 -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
