le 21/03/2007 11:09 Thorsten Scherler a écrit :
Hmm, since we decided to change the name of tiles to panels (see the
thread on dev) I did expect that this commit would have addressed this
issue as well.
Let me explain why the commit is not really how we want it.
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 15:50 +0000, Ross Gardler wrote:
Why is common-fo.vt.xml in html directory rather than the fo directory?
This should go into the "panels" directory of the theme directory since
it is an "old" tiles.
Panels do not care which contracts they contain. Meaning that for
internal processing in the dispatcher pelt-css.vt.xml will not be
treated different then common-fo.vt.xml.
The fo/css in the naming only shows which aggregation of contract and
hook (in short panel) are addressed.
Panels do not belong in the html nor in the fo nor in css nor in ....
directory but in a directory on its on like e.g.
themes/pelt/panels
themes/common/panels
Humm, I agree with the definition of panels and with the fact that vt
should be changed.
I don't see the benefit to store them in a specific directory, because I
have no example where a panel can be used for two different formats.
Why don't we name them with the .panel extension and store them in the
format directory ?
If we look at the css common directory we have a mix of different kind
of files :
theme/common/css
|-- basic.css (a real source file to be used
as it is)
|-- branding-generic-css.ft (a contract...)
|-- ...
|-- profiling.css.xslt (a stylesheet - which I'm not
sure is very useful...)
|-- ...
It doesn't strike me to have panels in there :
|-- common.panel
Salutations,
Cyriaque,
salu2
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 10:49 +0100, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
le 21/03/2007 10:31 Ross Gardler a écrit :
Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
le 21/03/2007 00:17 [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Author: rgardler
Date: Tue Mar 20 16:17:47 2007
New Revision: 520650
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=520650
Log:
Enable *.vt.xml files to be located in the correct directory within
themes.
[...SNIP...]
Also a good solution.
I didn't want to mess with the structure of the pattern as I'm not
familiar enough with dispatcher to know what side effects this may
have. If you think it is safe to do this, then I agree bother are
better than the current implementation.
I prefer the first option.
So do I.
I will make the update, may you check for the doap plugin please, I am
not sure to be able to test it...
Salutations,
Cyriaque,
Ross
