Splitting build and output directories (was Re: [Proposal] Forrest Terminology)

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
> RG> Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> 

...

> RG> I'm +1 one on splitting the stuff generated by building the Forrest
> RG> application and the stuff generated by "forrest site" (or whatever it
> RG> may become).
> 
> OK, I wasn't sure if tmp and webapp are used by the servlet
> exclusively. Is so, sure leavem them in one dir and call it something
> other than 'build'

Actually, the broken links file appears in tmp. I've often thought that 
we should move this into the generated docs and add a stylesheet to the 
projectInfo plugin to render it witin an admin section of the docs, 
perhaps as part of the todo page.

 > RG> But I don't see the need to go further and have all these
 > RG> different directories. To me webapp and tmp both belong in build 
since
 > RG> they are only of interest to forrest itself, not to the end user.
 >
 > Doesn't webapp contain logfiles that you want to look at?

Yes it does. It'll be difficult for us to find the right dividing line. 
The way I was thinking was that if a document is generated for use 
outside the Forrest environment then it should go into this "output" 
directory you are proposing (i.e. static pages and war file). This will 
mean there is only one directory to copy, no need to "learn" which one.

The log files are only of use if being run inside the forrest 
environment. If we should move those as well, then what about the plugin 
stuff? By the time we have moved webapp and the plugin stuff there isn't 
really much left in build. Which then begs the question do we need it?

> RG> The static contents should go into another directory, as should the war
> RG> file if generated for remote hosting.
> 
> Yes, that is the most important aspect.

So it's just where to join draw the line and also to decide if we 
actually *want* to split these. As I say I am +1 for it, but this is a 
major change and should be taken to a vote as it may have some unforseen 
consequences.

Ross

Re: Splitting build and output directories (was Re: [Proposal] Forrest Terminology)

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Ross Gardler wrote:
> Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> 
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> 
> 
> [OT: we've started getting duplicates of your mais]
> 
>>  >> Doesn't webapp contain logfiles that you want to look at?
>>
>>
>>> Yes it does. It'll be difficult for us to find the right dividing line.
>>> The way I was thinking was that if a document is generated for use 
>>> outside the Forrest environment then it should go into this "output"
>>> directory you are proposing (i.e. static pages and war file). This will
>>> mean there is only one directory to copy, no need to "learn" which one.
>>
>>
>>
>> I see a problem there because you'd mix log files from dynamic serving
>> with static output. But we could have the log files remain in the
>> serverspace and perhaps later on find a cocoon way of serving them as
>> part of the active site.
> 
> 
> Exactly, that is my point. I do not believe the log files should be 
> moved out of the build directory.

Sorry I just reread your point (must have a residual effect from last 
nights whiskey), let me respond again:

The issue of mixing dynamic content with static content is my point. I 
do not believe we should move the log files out of the build directory.

With resepct to your second point, having forrest serve them as a part 
of the site is possible, but it only makes sense in a dynamically 
generated site. Again this would indicate it should be in the build 
directory.

(incidentally, the log plugin in whiteboard could be used to provide a 
pretty version of the logs in a dynamically hosted site)

Ross

Re: Splitting build and output directories (was Re: [Proposal] Forrest Terminology)

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Ferdinand Soethe wrote:

<snip what="lots of potentially confused stuff because..."/>

>>>>By the time we have moved webapp and the plugin stuff there isn't
>>>>really much left in build. Which then begs the question do we need it?
> 
> 
>>>Right. I do want to get rid of it because of the naming overlap wih
>>>building the programm.
> 
> 
>>I'm not convinced. The files that are built with forrest are required by
>>a dynamically served site. Therefore there is no distinction between the
>>forrest appication and a site hosted in the forrest appication.
> 
> 
> Ah, I'm beginning to understand. But the why are they not part of the
> forrest programm tree? Why have them in the project tree at all?

It seems we have been talking at cross-purposes. I was referring to the 
build directory in the Forrest directory, not in the project directory.
If this isn't a perfect example of a need for clearer names I don't know 
what is :-))

If I understand you correctly you are actually referring to the "build" 
directory in a project. Would you like to restate your proposal for this 
restructuring since I may have taken us way off track.

Ross

Re: Splitting build and output directories (was Re: [Proposal] Forrest Terminology)

[Ferdinand Soethe <sa...@soethe.net>]

> Where is this "resources"?

The sugessted myproject/resources branch could have a plugin-dir

> What is the "serverspace"? There are three distinct options in running a
> server:

> 1 - host the static site in a web server (no plugins required)
> 2 - host dynamically in a forrest server (plugins are in the Forrest webapp)
> 3 - host dynamically in some other servlet container (plugins are a part
> of the war)

I guess I don't understand Forrest enough to follow you into this
discussion. So unless I will understand this later on, I'm fine with
keeping the webapp as a directory and the place for plugIns. But I'd
still vote for renaming the build-dir.

>>>By the time we have moved webapp and the plugin stuff there isn't
>>>really much left in build. Which then begs the question do we need it?

>> Right. I do want to get rid of it because of the naming overlap wih
>> building the programm.

> I'm not convinced. The files that are built with forrest are required by
> a dynamically served site. Therefore there is no distinction between the
> forrest appication and a site hosted in the forrest appication.

Ah, I'm beginning to understand. But the why are they not part of the
forrest programm tree? Why have them in the project tree at all?

> There is a danger of confusing things by creating too many places a file
> may logically be located.

So anyway. If that is required for some reason that 'build' is
appropriate naming I guess. In that case we should just take site out
of there?

--
Ferdinand Soethe

Re: Splitting build and output directories (was Re: [Proposal] Forrest Terminology)

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ferdinand Soethe wrote:

[OT: we've started getting duplicates of your mais]

>  >> Doesn't webapp contain logfiles that you want to look at?
> 
> 
>>Yes it does. It'll be difficult for us to find the right dividing line.
>>The way I was thinking was that if a document is generated for use 
>>outside the Forrest environment then it should go into this "output"
>>directory you are proposing (i.e. static pages and war file). This will
>>mean there is only one directory to copy, no need to "learn" which one.
> 
> 
> I see a problem there because you'd mix log files from dynamic serving
> with static output. But we could have the log files remain in the
> serverspace and perhaps later on find a cocoon way of serving them as
> part of the active site.

Exactly, that is my point. I do not believe the log files should be 
moved out of the build directory.

>>If we should move those as well, then what about the plugin
>>stuff?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense to have the plugins stored in resources? If not
> I think they'd be tmp or part of the serverspace.

Where is this "resources"?

What is the "serverspace"? There are three distinct options in running a 
server:

1 - host the static site in a web server (no plugins required)
2 - host dynamically in a forrest server (plugins are in the Forrest webapp)
3 - host dynamically in some other servlet container (plugins are a part 
of the war)

>>By the time we have moved webapp and the plugin stuff there isn't
>>really much left in build. Which then begs the question do we need it?
> 
> 
> Right. I do want to get rid of it because of the naming overlap wih
> building the programm.

I'm not convinced. The files that are built with forrest are required by 
a dynamically served site. Therefore there is no distinction between the 
forrest appication and a site hosted in the forrest appication.

There is a danger of confusing things by creating too many places a file 
may logically be located.

Ross

Re: Splitting build and output directories (was Re: [Proposal] Forrest Terminology)

[Ferdinand Soethe <sa...@soethe.net>]

Ross Gardler wrote:

> Ferdinand Soethe wrote:

>> OK, I wasn't sure if tmp and webapp are used by the servlet
>> exclusively. Is so, sure leavem them in one dir and call it something
>> other than 'build'

> Actually, the broken links file appears in tmp. I've often thought that
> we should move this into the generated docs and add a stylesheet to the
> projectInfo plugin to render it witin an admin section of the docs, 
> perhaps as part of the todo page.

+1 I always wondered why we are no using forrest to make them look
   nice.

 >> Doesn't webapp contain logfiles that you want to look at?

> Yes it does. It'll be difficult for us to find the right dividing line.
> The way I was thinking was that if a document is generated for use 
> outside the Forrest environment then it should go into this "output"
> directory you are proposing (i.e. static pages and war file). This will
> mean there is only one directory to copy, no need to "learn" which one.

I see a problem there because you'd mix log files from dynamic serving
with static output. But we could have the log files remain in the
serverspace and perhaps later on find a cocoon way of serving them as
part of the active site.

> The log files are only of use if being run inside the forrest 
> environment.

Right. See my comment above.

> If we should move those as well, then what about the plugin
> stuff?

Wouldn't it make sense to have the plugins stored in resources? If not
I think they'd be tmp or part of the serverspace.

> By the time we have moved webapp and the plugin stuff there isn't
> really much left in build. Which then begs the question do we need it?

Right. I do want to get rid of it because of the naming overlap wih
building the programm.

>> RG> The static contents should go into another directory, as should the war
>> RG> file if generated for remote hosting.
>> 
>> Yes, that is the most important aspect.

> So it's just where to join draw the line and also to decide if we 
> actually *want* to split these. As I say I am +1 for it, but this is a
> major change and should be taken to a vote as it may have some unforseen
> consequences.

I suggest to join this thread with '[RT] Directory structure and
configuration' and sort out the remaining issues so that we all know
what we are voting for and have resolved as many open question as
possible.

Since this will probably take 0.8 to happen, I think we have the time
and I'm willing to take the discussion to a final proposal and see
that it won't get lost again.


Ferdinand Soethe