On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 16:00 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > Seriously, coming back to metadata:
> > I recommend to split the forrest:properties from the view. Ross was
> > never really comfortable with their existence in the view and I agreed
> > saying they are right now a later entry point into the processing
> > pipeline (that I have in mind).
> >
> > I agree on an earlier mail from nicola (about metadata) and suggest:
> > index.fv
> > index.prop
> > index.meta
> > index.xml
> >
> > or:
> > index.fv.xml
> > index.prop.xml
> > index.meta.xml
> > index.xml
>
> Just to confirm, these are optional right? We have default files:
>
> default.fv
> default.prop
> default.meta
>
> and the above override the per file versions above.
>
yes that is right.
> It would be great to have per directory defaults too that could override
> the defaults, but be overridden by the files above.
>
I will think about something to make this possible. ;-)
>
> > Actually I am unsure which one is better because one invents fancy (e.g.
> > *.meta) extensions, the other is reserving this extensions in the naming
> > (*.meta.xml).
>
> I'd go for *.meta.xml my reasoning is that we will also provide things
> like *.source.xml and other such patterns. With the locationmap it is
> not a problem that you are reserving extension, they can be changed on a
> per site basis if necessary.
>
Yeah, good point. I agree.
> > The *.prop would contain the view specific extra content dispatcher
> > (nuggets) that are now stored in the view.
>
> Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with views terminology yet. Can you give
> me this in English, or even with a code example?
>
Actually our favorite example: ;-)
<forrest:contract name="feeder">
<forrest:properties contract="feeder">
<forrest:property name="feeder" nugget="get.nugget.feeder">
<url>/feeds/somefeed.xml</url>
</forrest:property>
</forrest:properties>
</forrest:contract>
The forrest:properties should go in a file for their own. that would
make:
in *.fv:
<forrest:contract name="feeder"/>
and in *.prop.xml:
<forrest:properties contract="feeder">
<forrest:property name="feeder" nugget="get.nugget.feeder">
<url>/feeds/somefeed.xml</url>
</forrest:property>
</forrest:properties>
Actually here you see that it is a kind of skinconf, but especially for
the one file. That is the reason why we need to harmonize the
skinconf/forrest:properties. Where I see the skinconf as
default.prop.xml. ;-)
Another thing that I noticed that each contract/properties should be
linked via unique id, to better reuse dynamic contracts in the view.
> > What is now missing is the logic:views part, because IMO that part has
> > to stay in the view. The logic:view part is for the designer like the
> > whole view. logic:view is handling *only* presentation logic to the
> > view.
>
> Good point.
>
> Ross
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
