on 4/18/00 7:06 PM, John McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nice to see it catch on. I thought it was a pretty decent design, though it
> did not seem to generate much interest. One thing:
>
> I had hoped earlier to generate some discussion on whether it might be
> better to dump the layouts directory in the template directory structure.
> Layouts are generally associated with a directory, but to give maximum
> flexibility they can be assigned to a specific screen. I think it is more
> intuitive to have something like:
>
> all searching is done in the screens directory
> template = /about_us/directions/driving.wm
> the search follows:
> /about_us/directions/driving_layout.wm
> /about_us/directions/default_layout.wm
> /about_us/default_layout.wm
> /default_layout.wm
>
> It might not seem that much better, being used to the module structure in
> Turbine. But it will probably always be the case that an application/site
> will have a few layouts and 10's to 100's of templates. It is also easier
> to look in the screen directory tree and determine the layout assigned to a
> screen as a opposed to tracking a parallel directory tree. I did not
> implement it this way in FM, as I was hoping for discussion first and it
> would require some more string manipulation code, I did not feel like
> implementing at the time. But I do feel it is a better design.
>
> Comments?
>
> John
I actually disagree on this point because I want to keep the distinction
between a Layout and a Screen as clearly separated as possible...this is a
part of Turbine that could be easily abused if we put them together because
people could just start making Layouts and putting everything in there
instead of within Screen's.
-jon
--
Scarab -
Java Servlet Based - Open Source
Bug/Issue Tracking System
<http://scarab.tigris.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
