> > after going through this entire discussion and looking at issue: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-387 > > i would like to raise the following point. > > > > i think it is important that this change was originally suggested to > > make the simple cases as simple and intuitive as possible for > > the user of sling and not to come up with something that is really > > easy and consistent to map for the sling implementation. > > > I partially agree: But a simple implementation tends to be simpler to > explain and thus simpler to use. > > > > let me try to explain with an example: > > as a user of sling i would like to have my app in > > /apps/myapp and lets say i have a node of resourceType > > "myapp/homepage" at "/content/myapp". > > > > i would like to to be able to structure my applications as follows: > > > > (1) /apps/myapp/homepage/hompage.esp (or html.esp or GET.esp) > > (2) /apps/myapp/homepage/edit.esp (or edit.html.esp) > > (3) /apps/myapp/homepage/header/highlight.jpg.esp > > (4) /apps/myapp/homepage/header/selected.jpg.esp > > (5) /apps/myapp/homepage/header/small.jpg.esp > > > > where > > > > /content/myapp.html -> (1) > > /content/myapp.edit.html -> (2) > > /content/myapp.header.highlight.jpg -> (3) > > /content/myapp.header.selected.jpg -> (4) > > /content/myapp.header.small.jpg -> (5) > > > > i think it is important that we avoid unnecessary repetition at any point > > and we would allow for enough flexibility in the /apps directory allow > > the user to come up with something short, distinct and meaningful. > > > That sounds clear at first sight. But it amounts to a whole lot of work > to implement. This also means a whole lot of CPU to burn. And a whole > lot of code means a whole lot of potential bugs ;-) > > I also wonder, why "/apps/myapp/homepage/header/highlight.jpg.esp" would > be easier to use than "/apps/myapp/homepage/header.highlight.jpg.esp" ? > It is eaven easier to manage: no need to move files in the hierarchy, > just rename them. And it is easier to explain: Instead of saying "build > a path from the selector by replacing dots by slashes" we just say > "append or use the selectors". > > Therefore, I honestly consider the current proposal superior to using > paths. almost....i have a real usecase where i prefer a 'directory' over a selector. in case of a 'navigation' image, i want to put additional resources and scripts in an own directory, so currently i do:
/apps/myapp/page/nav/png.jsp (generates the png) /apps/myapp/page/nav/background.jpg (used by the above script as background) /apps/myapp/page/nav/html.jsp (used to dump the <img ... /> tag) if i only can use selectors, this becomes awkward and even messy if i have a lot of "selections". IMO, the initial concern for the current resolution was that all scripts were named "html.jsp" and that this is very annoying during development. i suggest only to change that the scripts "may" repeat the last part of the resource type, eg: /apps/myapp/page/page.jsp or /apps/myapp/page/nav/nav.png.jsp -- toby
