From: "Adrian Crum" <[email protected]>
On 7/17/2012 2:47 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
The next steps for the future will be to move out of the framework the folders in the "images" application that are specific to
applications (somewhere under runtime seems a good approach).
Some of the application-specific content could be used by other applications, so it should stay in the resources component.
Anything that is truly application-specific should be kept in the application. The application-specific content can be added to
the application's URL path. If that causes problems with other applications trying to access it (I'm thinking of the product
content), then we might need to re-engineer some things to accommodate that. Putting content in the runtime folder sounds odd to
me.
The goal that I would like to achieve in the long term is the following: the framework/applications folders, once deployed should
be read only and should not contain files that are generated at runtime; at the moment the images folder is an exception because,
for example, when you upload an image the image is stored under framework/images/webapp/images (by default); for this I think
that runtime would be a better fit. On the other hand I agree that static resources could be hosted in the respective component.
But I am not planning to work on this sometime soon... we have time to think.
I know the purpose of the images web app was to provide the capability to host static content separately, and there are things
like Freemarker transforms and such that point to that static content. The problem is, static content might be hosted in more than
one place, or in more than one way (in a content repository). I'm thinking along the same path as BJ - maybe static content should
be accessed through the Content component or a similar mechanism. Then the static content could reside anywhere.
I agree that uploaded files need their own folder. Again, that could be handled by the Content component or a similar mechanism.
Uploaded files going into the runtime folder makes sense.
-Adrian
This makes sense to me. But then should we not put the Jackrabbit effort in the scope? Having a way to use a versionning system on
contents is obviously a must have. Notably when it comes to move contents from staging/qa to production. This is uneasy with
contents in DB.
Jacques
