Ross Gardler wrote: > 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 recently used the photo-gallery plugin. I had support PNG (sufficiently similar to be added to the plugin). I also changed the appearance of the filename "buttons": they were generated with svg and our long filenames didn't fit. This is a matter of taste ... How would I adapt this? It's not sufficiently different and yet a "matter of taste" how to display the file name (I know your answer: make it configurable ;-) Johannes > 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 > > > -- User Interface Design GmbH Teinacher Str. 38, 71634 Ludwigsburg Fon: +49-7141-37700-0 Fax: +49-7141-37700-99 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: www.uidesign.de Geschäftsstellen: Teinacher Str. 38, 71634 Ludwigsburg Truderinger Str. 330, 81825 München Friedrichsring 46, 68161 Mannheim Buch "User Interface Tuning" von Joachim Machate & Michael Burmester www.user-interface-tuning.de Attraktivität von interaktiven Produkten messen mit www.attrakdiff.de
