Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 16:00 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
...
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>
I thought that was what you meant, I'm not sure I agree. Lets explore...
The forrest:properties should go in a file for their own. that would
make:
in *.fv:
<forrest:contract name="feeder"/>
Well this is cleaner, I like that. What I am uncomfortable with is the
creation of yet another file we need to edit in order to get the page to
look the way we want it. Admittedly it is unlikely that we will need to
create all three files for many pages. This brings me back again to the
per directory config (see below)
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>
[ASIDE] I think we need to create a more generic contract instead of
this feeder one, it looks exactly the same and behaves exactly the same,
but it is called "embed" or something like that. This can be used to
embed any content within a view based page - this gives us a portal.
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. ;-)
This is also why we need the per directory configs. Imagine a site with,
for example, a number of subsections, lets say Human Resources, Product
News and Market Analysis. The RSS feed for each section will be
different, but it will not be different for each page within each section.
Without per directory we need three files for every page - bad.
With per directory config we need three files for each directory - good.
Of course, you said you think you can make this work. I'm now saying I
think we *have* to make this work, unless...
Another thing that I noticed that each contract/properties should be
linked via unique id, to better reuse dynamic contracts in the view.
Does this impace my concern abouve?
Ross
