Hi JV,
On Jan 27, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm about to commit silk icons so that we bundle them with our webapp.
> I want to commit them under xwiki-web-standard but we don't have any
> standard place where to put this kind of common resources.
> We currently have common resources (js and icons) under the root of
> our webapp (yui,xwiki.js,etc) and in the albatross skin (most of
> them).
> Those resources are independant from a particular skin and thus
> shouldn't be placed in one of them (at least imho).
>
> I suggest that we move javascript and icon files out of albatross and
> that we introduce a new rule: don't put javascript in our skins.
I don't really agree wit this (unless it's a wording issue ;)). We
should put in standard/web *only* web resources that are common to all
skins. We can have (and should have) js and icons which are only valid
for a given skin.
> Note that I'm not suggesting to deprecate our baseskin mechanism since
> being able to use inheritance between skins is a good thing (it allows
> to customize only part of the styles).
>
> Proposal 1
> ========
>
> Tree:
>
> xwiki/
> -- resources/
> ---- icons/
> ------ tango/
> ------ silk/
Do we need both icon library? Can't we move to using only silk?
> ---- javascript/
> ------ lib/ (we could minimize files in this folder at build time
> with rhino)
Why the need for a lib/ subdirectory? XWiki could be viewed as a lib
IMO.
> -------- prototype/
> -------- scriptaculous/
> -------- yui/
> ------ xwiki/ (files get from this directory would be parsed since
> almost xwiki js files contains velocity calls)
Cannot this be decided by the user by using the proper API call?
> -- skins/
> ---- toucan/
> -- templates/
> -- META-INF/
> -- WEB-INF/
>
> Getter methods:
>
> Util.getJavascriptResource(String filename)
> Util.getIconResource(String filename)
Why do we need methods for each type of resources? Can't we have a
generic getResource() method instead passing the path, i.e.
getResource("icons/silk/...")
Is it because we want to be able to change the top level location of
resources?
> The resources directory would be held by xwiki-web-standard.
> Note that this way of getting resources would prevent overloading of
> icons and javascript from the skin (unlike xwiki.getSkinFile).
Couldn't we figure out an algorithm that would allow that?
> Proposal 2
> ========
>
> Tree:
>
> xwiki/
> -- skins/
> ---- commons/
I don't like this too much. Commons is not a skin so it shouldn't be
at that level.
>
> ------ icons/
> -------- tango/
> -------- silk/
> ------ javascript/
> -------- lib/ (we could minimize files in this folder at build time
> with rhino)
> ---------- prototype/
> ---------- scriptaculous/
> ---------- tinymce/
> ---------- yui/
> -------- xwiki/ (files get from this directory would be parsed since
> almost xwiki js files contains velocity calls)
> ---- toucan/
> -- templates/
> -- META-INF/
> -- WEB-INF/
>
> Getter methods:
>
> Modify getSkinFile to look into commons after looking into skin and
> baseskin (toucan then albatross in our distrib).
If we can do this then we can also do the same for proposal 1 I think.
> The skins/commons/ directory would be held by xwiki-web-standard.
>
> I'd also like to take advantage of this refactoring to remove some
> files from the root of our webapp if we all agree:
>
> - JSTrim*
> - freemind (unused)
> - s5 (moved out of XE 2 years ago IIRW)
The presentation app was moved to the sandbox not that long ago.
+1 for removing these.
Conclusion:
* I'm ok to regroup all common stuff under a single directory
("resources", "common", "base", etc) but not inside skins. I'd prefer
it to be at the same level as skins/.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
