Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
le 07/06/2006 13:23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
...
Ok, You have totally removed the previous text, but I think information
were useful - declaration of the location of the new copy, share between
several projects, order of the declaration.
Can't we merge both versions ?
You beat me to it. I was going to mail on this subject...
When I came to do the merge I thought better of it. The main problem I
have is with the fact that copying a plugin, as you suggested, results
in a conflict of plugin names. This is in contradiction of the naming
convention which requires a world unique name.
I tried to think of a use case where such a forking would be necessary.
I couldn't think of any. Either the use case is sufficiently different
that it warrants a new plugin. Or it is sufficiently similar that it
should be added to the existing plugin. I'm -1 on appearing to encourage
users (and this is a user doc) to fork our code.
The idea of adding a plugin to a project directory also smells of bad
practice to me. One of the goals of Forrest is to separate the concerns
of the content designer, the content publisher and the developer. A
plugin has, IMHO, no place inside the content. Therefore, all plugins
should be in an external directory. Regardless, this discussion has no
place in a users document, but should be in the developers
documentation, so I stripped it and intend to add it to the developer docs.
With respect to adding the location of the plugins to the users
forrest.properties file I initially thought this a bad idea. However, in
trying to explain my reasoning in this reply I realised I had
misunderstood the point you were making. You are right to put this
information in a user doc. I'll correct that in a few minutes.
Is this OK?
Ross
