Hi, On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. > > Any more Opinions out there ? I'm not sure which option feels more comfortable to me. On the one hand selectors are nice to use if you just have a few aspects of a resource. Building a new aspect is just duplicate, rename and change the code. But on the other hand as soon as the amount of aspects increase it may be a long list of scripts and this may become not so easy to manage for refactoring. Refactoring also may be painful if you have to rename a lot of scripts instead of the parent node. Duplicating the whole set of scripts also would also be much easier. As soon as there is a hierachy in the aspects of a resource I absolutely perfer to have a path instead of a bunch of scripts with related names. >From a hierarchical view this could look like this: /apps/myapp/homepage/header/jpg.esp (or header/header.jpg.esp) /apps/myapp/homepage/header/highlight/jpg.esp (or highlight/highlight.jpg.esp) /apps/myapp/homepage/header/selected/jpg.esp (or selected/selected.jpg.esp) /apps/myapp/homepage/header/small/jpg.esp (or small/small.jpg.esp) So in the end I tend to prefer the path. Best regards, Dominik
