On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:48 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote: > >>I will soon be on this improvment, but I don't understand what is the > >>impact of the project.skin property now that templates directly generate > >>XHTML. > >>Thorsten, how do you imagine to be multi-skins vith views ? > >> > >> > > > >For now we can use a new forrest.properties property for that. > > > >I added in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=215900&view=rev > >#views > >project.view-defaultView=default.fv > > > >Now you can add to you project specific forrest.properties > >project.view-defaultView=pelt.fv > > > > > Ok, and where do I put my pelt.fv ? > I tried in : > > * > forrest/build/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view/resources/views,
That is not activated yet it will be (hopefully) tonight. ;-) > * project/src/documentation/conf that got obsolete with the new fallback mechanism. > > it is not taken into account... > > It is only taken into account in > project/src/documentation/content/xdocs, but I would like to have the > same behaviour of inheritance as for default.fv : > > * Search for $path/myFile.fv > * If not found, try to take this - > project/src/documentation/conf/pelt.fv I changed that with URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=209151&view=rev Log: Activated per dir view fallbacks. That means we match now file-specific->(sub-)dir-specific->plugin specific views. This change makes the conf/default.fv view obsolete, because we now expecting it in xdocs/default.fv. What I did with URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=215900&view=rev Log: Activated project specific naming for the fallback view. In forrest.properties we can now add project.view-defaultView and rename default.fv to the way we want. That means if you add: project.view-defaultView=pelt.fv and then the last fallback (former: project/src/documentation/conf/) in the xdocs/pelt.fv will match. ...but each dir can have a pelt.fv ($project.view-defaultView) to override the default one. > * And - at last - if not found, take this - > > forrest/build/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view/resources/views/pelt.fv > That is not yet activated but I will do that asap. For now please use "project.view-defaultView=pelt.fv". HTH salu2 > Regards, > Cyriaque, > > >...and then follow > >http://forrest.apache.org/docs_0_80/howto/howto-view-dsl.html > > > >to develop pelt based on views. > > > >Then you will end up with 1. css-file and 1. pelt.fv. > > > >We will then add it to the view and we can choose 2 different skins > >(default and pelt). > > > > > > > >>(That is how do we manage templates, how do we manage fv files > >> Maybe use of different directories to store templates ? > >> Maybe default.skinname.fv files ? > >>) > >> > >> > > > >If we come to the point where we have views in the core and "view > >plugins" that will be nearly the same. With a small extension that the > >user can then as well define which views.xhtml plugin (s)he wants. > > > >Like > >project.views.xhtml.plugin=org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.viewHelper.xhtml > > > >Only that we need to move views into the core to activate that. > > > >Anyway if you can provide the css and view for pelt that would be more > >then great. > > > >:) > > > >salu2 > > > > > > > >>Regards, > >>Cyriaque, > >> > >> > >> > >>>>You are as well admin and can reopen the issue (read on before you do). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Yes I know. But I don't want to go stamping on what you already did > >>>without understanding your reasoning, you never know I might agree > >>>with you when you explain it to me ;-) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Adding *new features* to skins *do not* help to make views ready to > >>>>replace skins. Did you thought about that? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>I agree that spending the time adding new features is not a good > >>>thing. However this patch already exists. as I said in my mail I agree > >>>that it would need to be made configurable, I'm not sure anyone will > >>>bother with that, I know I won't). Like I said in my original mail, > >>>all I am suggesting is leaving it open so that if a user wants this > >>>feature we can point them at the patch, or better still they will find > >>>it without asking questions on the lists. If the issue is closed they > >>>are unlikely to find it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>...and we *do not* need pelt in views, that is not true. Why do you mean > >>>>that? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>If you want people to adopt views I strongly recommend that we have a > >>>view that looks the same as pelt. Look at the number of sites on our > >>>example sites that use it. Most of those sites will will not switch to > >>>views unless at the point of switching their site looks the same as it > >>>does not. Then some will start playing with views and customising > >>>their sites look and feel because they will discover how easy it is. > >>> > >>>Those who are not using pelt are, in most cases, using a customised > >>>version of it. If you provide a view that looks like pelt it will be > >>>much easier for them to recreate their own site in views. Therefore, > >>>they are more likely to migrate to views. > >>> > >>>If you do not provide this migration route most existing users will > >>>stick with the deprecated skin for quite some time. There is no > >>>motivation to move from it since they are perfectly happy with what > >>>they have. The fact that it is cool, whizz bang technology and really > >>>easy to customise is irrelevant if they are happy with what they have. > >>> > >>>If we want to bring our existing user base to views we have to make it > >>>very easy for them. This means, in my opinion, that we need a view > >>>that looks exactly like pelt. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Anyway I am -1 to reopen this issue and apply it to skins because that > >>>>means we have to add yet another property to the skinconf,... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>I said reopen, not necessarily apply it, I agree with David that it > >>>would need to be configurable before we applied it and that involves > >>>spending time on it, which I agree is not a good thing, our dev time > >>>should go into views. However, the fact that we are deprecating the > >>>skin does not mean we should put contributions in a place where they > >>>will not be seen by existing users. > >>> > >>>Ross > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
