David Crossley wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
...
But I actually do not see the point in coping "old" code from the
prototype into the new plugin. Before moving the code we need to have a
close look on what we really want to keep and what we need to refactor
before moving.
Yes, i wondered that too.
Perhaps we should look upon the internal.xhtml2 plugin
as an exploration. We might need to redo it, even a
few times, to understand what is needed.
+1 I didn't know how view worked, by doing it this way, I now understand
how they work - they are *way* too complex. The sitemap looks like a
programm with methods and everything. No wonder you want to refactor
stuff into Java classes - tht is a good move I think (just as we need to
refactor pluigin loading into Java).
So just copying stuff, got us off to a quick start
yesterday.
That was the point. *everything* to do with views is in structurer.xmap
Just remove that and we start with a fresh plugin.
The thing that concerns me most is that we are back to mix output plugin
code and internal plugin code. That is doomed to fail. I had this before
and other devs pointed out, that it is not working that way. We have to
think about a better way to separate this concerns.
We had a quick discussion about that.
For lack of a decision, we copied everything in,
and hoped to decide later what to move back to
output plugins.
Much of what is in the current output plugin should not be there (in
fact there are many fixme's that say so). I've always been concerned
that the views output plugin is not actually an output plugin (remember
I have always insisted views should be provided in a new type of plugin).
I am now convinced of it. I can't discuss this now, but will start that
particular discussion next week.
Ross
