You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> on 2005/07/12 12:06:57 UTC
[Proposal] No new features into skins (was Re: [jira] Closed:
(FOR-320) )
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:01 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:08 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
> >
> >>Thorsten, you closed the FOR-320 and do not apply the patch on skins.
> >>Does that mean that we will not improve skins anymore ?
> >>
> >
> >
> > I would not see any benefit from applying it to skins. ;-)
>
>
> The patch already works for skins and there are many people already
> using skins. Views are not ready to replace skins yet (we will need pelt
> in views before that can happen). Please reopen the issue.
>
You are as well admin and can reopen the issue (read on before you do).
Adding *new features* to skins *do not* help to make views ready to
replace skins. Did you thought about that?
I agree when we are talking about bug fixes for skins but new features
have to go into views!
We agreed that 0.8-dev is to integrate views into the core and replacing
skins. Why you always look back for skins, look forward into views! Why
spending time on skins when you spend it better on views?
We have the same situation over in lenya, where 1.4 is not *really
ready* but we stoped adding new features to 1.2.x. All new features has
to go into 1.4. Now we are all starting to get polish 1.4.
...and we *do not* need pelt in views, that is not true. Why do you mean
that?
Anyway I am -1 to reopen this issue and apply it to skins because that
means we have to add yet another property to the skinconf,...
> I agree with David that it needs to be made configurable if we are to
> apply it. Whether anyone has that itch I don't know. But if we leave the
> issue open at least we can point people to it should they want this
> feature (maybe someone will make it configurable).
>
We can do it when it is closed as well. It is applied to the trunk and
to views (both standing for the future of forrest).
I propose an official stop for implementing features into skin. As I
repeated many times they are a dead end. In skins they should only
bugfixes being applied.
All features should go into views. We need to stick with our roadmap.
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] No new features into skins (was Re: [jira] Closed:
(FOR-320) )
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 11:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:01 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> >>Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:08 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Thorsten, you closed the FOR-320 and do not apply the patch on skins.
> >>>>Does that mean that we will not improve skins anymore ?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I would not see any benefit from applying it to skins. ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >>The patch already works for skins and there are many people already
> >>using skins. Views are not ready to replace skins yet (we will need pelt
> >>in views before that can happen). Please reopen the issue.
> >>
> >
> >
> > ....
> > Anyway I am -1 to reopen this issue and apply it to skins because that
> > means we have to add yet another property to the skinconf,...
>
> I said reopen, not necessarily apply it, I agree with David that it
> would need to be configurable before we applied it and that involves
> spending time on it, which I agree is not a good thing, our dev time
> should go into views. However, the fact that we are deprecating the skin
> does not mean we should put contributions in a place where they will not
> be seen by existing users.
I reopened it.
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] No new features into skins (was Re: [jira] Closed:
(FOR-320) )
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 18:20 +0200, Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:48 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
> > >>I will soon be on this improvment, but I don't understand what is the
> > >>impact of the project.skin property now that templates directly generate
> > >>XHTML.
> > >>Thorsten, how do you imagine to be multi-skins vith views ?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >For now we can use a new forrest.properties property for that.
> > >
> > >I added in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=215900&view=rev
> > >#views
> > >project.view-defaultView=default.fv
> > >
> > >Now you can add to you project specific forrest.properties
> > >project.view-defaultView=pelt.fv
> > >
> > >
> > Ok, and where do I put my pelt.fv ?
> > I tried in :
> >
> > * forrest/build/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view/resources/views,
>
> That is not activated yet it will be (hopefully) tonight. ;-)
fixed
New Revision: 216270
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=216270&view=rev
Log:
Activated multiple skin facility in views. Now if you use
project.view-defaultView=pelt.fv the views plugin will check whether
there is a 'pelt.fv' in the plugin. If not it uses the default.fv
otherwise pelt.fv.
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] No new features into skins (was Re: [jira] Closed:
(FOR-320) )
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:48 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
> >>I will soon be on this improvment, but I don't understand what is the
> >>impact of the project.skin property now that templates directly generate
> >>XHTML.
> >>Thorsten, how do you imagine to be multi-skins vith views ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >For now we can use a new forrest.properties property for that.
> >
> >I added in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=215900&view=rev
> >#views
> >project.view-defaultView=default.fv
> >
> >Now you can add to you project specific forrest.properties
> >project.view-defaultView=pelt.fv
> >
> >
> Ok, and where do I put my pelt.fv ?
> I tried in :
>
> * forrest/build/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view/resources/views,
That is not activated yet it will be (hopefully) tonight. ;-)
> * project/src/documentation/conf
that got obsolete with the new fallback mechanism.
>
> it is not taken into account...
>
> It is only taken into account in
> project/src/documentation/content/xdocs, but I would like to have the
> same behaviour of inheritance as for default.fv :
>
> * Search for $path/myFile.fv
> * If not found, try to take this -
> project/src/documentation/conf/pelt.fv
I changed that with URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=209151&view=rev
Log:
Activated per dir view fallbacks. That means we match now
file-specific->(sub-)dir-specific->plugin specific views. This change
makes the conf/default.fv view obsolete, because we now expecting it in
xdocs/default.fv.
What I did with URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=215900&view=rev
Log:
Activated project specific naming for the fallback view. In
forrest.properties we can now add project.view-defaultView and rename
default.fv to the way we want.
That means if you add:
project.view-defaultView=pelt.fv
and then the last fallback (former: project/src/documentation/conf/) in
the xdocs/pelt.fv will match. ...but each dir can have a pelt.fv
($project.view-defaultView) to override the default one.
> * And - at last - if not found, take this -
> forrest/build/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view/resources/views/pelt.fv
>
That is not yet activated but I will do that asap.
For now please use "project.view-defaultView=pelt.fv".
HTH
salu2
> Regards,
> Cyriaque,
>
> >...and then follow
> >http://forrest.apache.org/docs_0_80/howto/howto-view-dsl.html
> >
> >to develop pelt based on views.
> >
> >Then you will end up with 1. css-file and 1. pelt.fv.
> >
> >We will then add it to the view and we can choose 2 different skins
> >(default and pelt).
> >
> >
> >
> >>(That is how do we manage templates, how do we manage fv files
> >> Maybe use of different directories to store templates ?
> >> Maybe default.skinname.fv files ?
> >>)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If we come to the point where we have views in the core and "view
> >plugins" that will be nearly the same. With a small extension that the
> >user can then as well define which views.xhtml plugin (s)he wants.
> >
> >Like
> >project.views.xhtml.plugin=org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.viewHelper.xhtml
> >
> >Only that we need to move views into the core to activate that.
> >
> >Anyway if you can provide the css and view for pelt that would be more
> >then great.
> >
> >:)
> >
> >salu2
> >
> >
> >
> >>Regards,
> >>Cyriaque,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>You are as well admin and can reopen the issue (read on before you do).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Yes I know. But I don't want to go stamping on what you already did
> >>>without understanding your reasoning, you never know I might agree
> >>>with you when you explain it to me ;-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Adding *new features* to skins *do not* help to make views ready to
> >>>>replace skins. Did you thought about that?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>I agree that spending the time adding new features is not a good
> >>>thing. However this patch already exists. as I said in my mail I agree
> >>>that it would need to be made configurable, I'm not sure anyone will
> >>>bother with that, I know I won't). Like I said in my original mail,
> >>>all I am suggesting is leaving it open so that if a user wants this
> >>>feature we can point them at the patch, or better still they will find
> >>>it without asking questions on the lists. If the issue is closed they
> >>>are unlikely to find it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>...and we *do not* need pelt in views, that is not true. Why do you mean
> >>>>that?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>If you want people to adopt views I strongly recommend that we have a
> >>>view that looks the same as pelt. Look at the number of sites on our
> >>>example sites that use it. Most of those sites will will not switch to
> >>>views unless at the point of switching their site looks the same as it
> >>>does not. Then some will start playing with views and customising
> >>>their sites look and feel because they will discover how easy it is.
> >>>
> >>>Those who are not using pelt are, in most cases, using a customised
> >>>version of it. If you provide a view that looks like pelt it will be
> >>>much easier for them to recreate their own site in views. Therefore,
> >>>they are more likely to migrate to views.
> >>>
> >>>If you do not provide this migration route most existing users will
> >>>stick with the deprecated skin for quite some time. There is no
> >>>motivation to move from it since they are perfectly happy with what
> >>>they have. The fact that it is cool, whizz bang technology and really
> >>>easy to customise is irrelevant if they are happy with what they have.
> >>>
> >>>If we want to bring our existing user base to views we have to make it
> >>>very easy for them. This means, in my opinion, that we need a view
> >>>that looks exactly like pelt.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Anyway I am -1 to reopen this issue and apply it to skins because that
> >>>>means we have to add yet another property to the skinconf,...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>I said reopen, not necessarily apply it, I agree with David that it
> >>>would need to be configurable before we applied it and that involves
> >>>spending time on it, which I agree is not a good thing, our dev time
> >>>should go into views. However, the fact that we are deprecating the
> >>>skin does not mean we should put contributions in a place where they
> >>>will not be seen by existing users.
> >>>
> >>>Ross
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] No new features into skins (was Re: [jira] Closed:
(FOR-320) )
Posted by Cyriaque Dupoirieux <Cy...@pcotech.fr>.
Thorsten Scherler a écrit :
>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 14:25 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
>
>
>>Ross Gardler a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:01 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:08 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thorsten, you closed the FOR-320 and do not apply the patch on skins.
>>>>>>>Does that mean that we will not improve skins anymore ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would not see any benefit from applying it to skins. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The patch already works for skins and there are many people already
>>>>>using skins. Views are not ready to replace skins yet (we will need
>>>>>pelt in views before that can happen). Please reopen the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>I will soon be on this improvment, but I don't understand what is the
>>impact of the project.skin property now that templates directly generate
>>XHTML.
>>Thorsten, how do you imagine to be multi-skins vith views ?
>>
>>
>
>For now we can use a new forrest.properties property for that.
>
>I added in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=215900&view=rev
>#views
>project.view-defaultView=default.fv
>
>Now you can add to you project specific forrest.properties
>project.view-defaultView=pelt.fv
>
>
Ok, and where do I put my pelt.fv ?
I tried in :
* forrest/build/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view/resources/views,
* project/src/documentation/conf
it is not taken into account...
It is only taken into account in
project/src/documentation/content/xdocs, but I would like to have the
same behaviour of inheritance as for default.fv :
* Search for $path/myFile.fv
* If not found, try to take this -
project/src/documentation/conf/pelt.fv
* And - at last - if not found, take this -
forrest/build/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view/resources/views/pelt.fv
Regards,
Cyriaque,
>...and then follow
>http://forrest.apache.org/docs_0_80/howto/howto-view-dsl.html
>
>to develop pelt based on views.
>
>Then you will end up with 1. css-file and 1. pelt.fv.
>
>We will then add it to the view and we can choose 2 different skins
>(default and pelt).
>
>
>
>>(That is how do we manage templates, how do we manage fv files
>> Maybe use of different directories to store templates ?
>> Maybe default.skinname.fv files ?
>>)
>>
>>
>
>If we come to the point where we have views in the core and "view
>plugins" that will be nearly the same. With a small extension that the
>user can then as well define which views.xhtml plugin (s)he wants.
>
>Like
>project.views.xhtml.plugin=org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.viewHelper.xhtml
>
>Only that we need to move views into the core to activate that.
>
>Anyway if you can provide the css and view for pelt that would be more
>then great.
>
>:)
>
>salu2
>
>
>
>>Regards,
>>Cyriaque,
>>
>>
>>
>>>>You are as well admin and can reopen the issue (read on before you do).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yes I know. But I don't want to go stamping on what you already did
>>>without understanding your reasoning, you never know I might agree
>>>with you when you explain it to me ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Adding *new features* to skins *do not* help to make views ready to
>>>>replace skins. Did you thought about that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I agree that spending the time adding new features is not a good
>>>thing. However this patch already exists. as I said in my mail I agree
>>>that it would need to be made configurable, I'm not sure anyone will
>>>bother with that, I know I won't). Like I said in my original mail,
>>>all I am suggesting is leaving it open so that if a user wants this
>>>feature we can point them at the patch, or better still they will find
>>>it without asking questions on the lists. If the issue is closed they
>>>are unlikely to find it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>...and we *do not* need pelt in views, that is not true. Why do you mean
>>>>that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If you want people to adopt views I strongly recommend that we have a
>>>view that looks the same as pelt. Look at the number of sites on our
>>>example sites that use it. Most of those sites will will not switch to
>>>views unless at the point of switching their site looks the same as it
>>>does not. Then some will start playing with views and customising
>>>their sites look and feel because they will discover how easy it is.
>>>
>>>Those who are not using pelt are, in most cases, using a customised
>>>version of it. If you provide a view that looks like pelt it will be
>>>much easier for them to recreate their own site in views. Therefore,
>>>they are more likely to migrate to views.
>>>
>>>If you do not provide this migration route most existing users will
>>>stick with the deprecated skin for quite some time. There is no
>>>motivation to move from it since they are perfectly happy with what
>>>they have. The fact that it is cool, whizz bang technology and really
>>>easy to customise is irrelevant if they are happy with what they have.
>>>
>>>If we want to bring our existing user base to views we have to make it
>>>very easy for them. This means, in my opinion, that we need a view
>>>that looks exactly like pelt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyway I am -1 to reopen this issue and apply it to skins because that
>>>>means we have to add yet another property to the skinconf,...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I said reopen, not necessarily apply it, I agree with David that it
>>>would need to be configurable before we applied it and that involves
>>>spending time on it, which I agree is not a good thing, our dev time
>>>should go into views. However, the fact that we are deprecating the
>>>skin does not mean we should put contributions in a place where they
>>>will not be seen by existing users.
>>>
>>>Ross
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: [Proposal] No new features into skins (was Re: [jira] Closed:
(FOR-320) )
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 14:25 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
> Ross Gardler a écrit :
>
> > Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:01 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:08 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thorsten, you closed the FOR-320 and do not apply the patch on skins.
> >>>>> Does that mean that we will not improve skins anymore ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would not see any benefit from applying it to skins. ;-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The patch already works for skins and there are many people already
> >>> using skins. Views are not ready to replace skins yet (we will need
> >>> pelt in views before that can happen). Please reopen the issue.
> >>
> I will soon be on this improvment, but I don't understand what is the
> impact of the project.skin property now that templates directly generate
> XHTML.
> Thorsten, how do you imagine to be multi-skins vith views ?
For now we can use a new forrest.properties property for that.
I added in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=215900&view=rev
#views
project.view-defaultView=default.fv
Now you can add to you project specific forrest.properties
project.view-defaultView=pelt.fv
...and then follow
http://forrest.apache.org/docs_0_80/howto/howto-view-dsl.html
to develop pelt based on views.
Then you will end up with 1. css-file and 1. pelt.fv.
We will then add it to the view and we can choose 2 different skins
(default and pelt).
> (That is how do we manage templates, how do we manage fv files
> Maybe use of different directories to store templates ?
> Maybe default.skinname.fv files ?
> )
If we come to the point where we have views in the core and "view
plugins" that will be nearly the same. With a small extension that the
user can then as well define which views.xhtml plugin (s)he wants.
Like
project.views.xhtml.plugin=org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.viewHelper.xhtml
Only that we need to move views into the core to activate that.
Anyway if you can provide the css and view for pelt that would be more
then great.
:)
salu2
>
> Regards,
> Cyriaque,
>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> You are as well admin and can reopen the issue (read on before you do).
> >
> >
> > Yes I know. But I don't want to go stamping on what you already did
> > without understanding your reasoning, you never know I might agree
> > with you when you explain it to me ;-)
> >
> >> Adding *new features* to skins *do not* help to make views ready to
> >> replace skins. Did you thought about that?
> >
> >
> > I agree that spending the time adding new features is not a good
> > thing. However this patch already exists. as I said in my mail I agree
> > that it would need to be made configurable, I'm not sure anyone will
> > bother with that, I know I won't). Like I said in my original mail,
> > all I am suggesting is leaving it open so that if a user wants this
> > feature we can point them at the patch, or better still they will find
> > it without asking questions on the lists. If the issue is closed they
> > are unlikely to find it.
> >
> >> ...and we *do not* need pelt in views, that is not true. Why do you mean
> >> that?
> >
> >
> > If you want people to adopt views I strongly recommend that we have a
> > view that looks the same as pelt. Look at the number of sites on our
> > example sites that use it. Most of those sites will will not switch to
> > views unless at the point of switching their site looks the same as it
> > does not. Then some will start playing with views and customising
> > their sites look and feel because they will discover how easy it is.
> >
> > Those who are not using pelt are, in most cases, using a customised
> > version of it. If you provide a view that looks like pelt it will be
> > much easier for them to recreate their own site in views. Therefore,
> > they are more likely to migrate to views.
> >
> > If you do not provide this migration route most existing users will
> > stick with the deprecated skin for quite some time. There is no
> > motivation to move from it since they are perfectly happy with what
> > they have. The fact that it is cool, whizz bang technology and really
> > easy to customise is irrelevant if they are happy with what they have.
> >
> > If we want to bring our existing user base to views we have to make it
> > very easy for them. This means, in my opinion, that we need a view
> > that looks exactly like pelt.
> >
> >> Anyway I am -1 to reopen this issue and apply it to skins because that
> >> means we have to add yet another property to the skinconf,...
> >
> >
> > I said reopen, not necessarily apply it, I agree with David that it
> > would need to be configurable before we applied it and that involves
> > spending time on it, which I agree is not a good thing, our dev time
> > should go into views. However, the fact that we are deprecating the
> > skin does not mean we should put contributions in a place where they
> > will not be seen by existing users.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> >
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] No new features into skins (was Re: [jira] Closed:
(FOR-320) )
Posted by Cyriaque Dupoirieux <Cy...@pcotech.fr>.
Ross Gardler a écrit :
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:01 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:08 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thorsten, you closed the FOR-320 and do not apply the patch on skins.
>>>>> Does that mean that we will not improve skins anymore ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would not see any benefit from applying it to skins. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The patch already works for skins and there are many people already
>>> using skins. Views are not ready to replace skins yet (we will need
>>> pelt in views before that can happen). Please reopen the issue.
>>
I will soon be on this improvment, but I don't understand what is the
impact of the project.skin property now that templates directly generate
XHTML.
Thorsten, how do you imagine to be multi-skins vith views ?
(That is how do we manage templates, how do we manage fv files
Maybe use of different directories to store templates ?
Maybe default.skinname.fv files ?
)
Regards,
Cyriaque,
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are as well admin and can reopen the issue (read on before you do).
>
>
> Yes I know. But I don't want to go stamping on what you already did
> without understanding your reasoning, you never know I might agree
> with you when you explain it to me ;-)
>
>> Adding *new features* to skins *do not* help to make views ready to
>> replace skins. Did you thought about that?
>
>
> I agree that spending the time adding new features is not a good
> thing. However this patch already exists. as I said in my mail I agree
> that it would need to be made configurable, I'm not sure anyone will
> bother with that, I know I won't). Like I said in my original mail,
> all I am suggesting is leaving it open so that if a user wants this
> feature we can point them at the patch, or better still they will find
> it without asking questions on the lists. If the issue is closed they
> are unlikely to find it.
>
>> ...and we *do not* need pelt in views, that is not true. Why do you mean
>> that?
>
>
> If you want people to adopt views I strongly recommend that we have a
> view that looks the same as pelt. Look at the number of sites on our
> example sites that use it. Most of those sites will will not switch to
> views unless at the point of switching their site looks the same as it
> does not. Then some will start playing with views and customising
> their sites look and feel because they will discover how easy it is.
>
> Those who are not using pelt are, in most cases, using a customised
> version of it. If you provide a view that looks like pelt it will be
> much easier for them to recreate their own site in views. Therefore,
> they are more likely to migrate to views.
>
> If you do not provide this migration route most existing users will
> stick with the deprecated skin for quite some time. There is no
> motivation to move from it since they are perfectly happy with what
> they have. The fact that it is cool, whizz bang technology and really
> easy to customise is irrelevant if they are happy with what they have.
>
> If we want to bring our existing user base to views we have to make it
> very easy for them. This means, in my opinion, that we need a view
> that looks exactly like pelt.
>
>> Anyway I am -1 to reopen this issue and apply it to skins because that
>> means we have to add yet another property to the skinconf,...
>
>
> I said reopen, not necessarily apply it, I agree with David that it
> would need to be configurable before we applied it and that involves
> spending time on it, which I agree is not a good thing, our dev time
> should go into views. However, the fact that we are deprecating the
> skin does not mean we should put contributions in a place where they
> will not be seen by existing users.
>
> Ross
>
>
Re: [Proposal] No new features into skins (was Re: [jira] Closed:
(FOR-320) )
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:01 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>>Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:08 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thorsten, you closed the FOR-320 and do not apply the patch on skins.
>>>>Does that mean that we will not improve skins anymore ?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I would not see any benefit from applying it to skins. ;-)
>>
>>
>>The patch already works for skins and there are many people already
>>using skins. Views are not ready to replace skins yet (we will need pelt
>>in views before that can happen). Please reopen the issue.
>>
>
>
> You are as well admin and can reopen the issue (read on before you do).
Yes I know. But I don't want to go stamping on what you already did
without understanding your reasoning, you never know I might agree with
you when you explain it to me ;-)
> Adding *new features* to skins *do not* help to make views ready to
> replace skins. Did you thought about that?
I agree that spending the time adding new features is not a good thing.
However this patch already exists. as I said in my mail I agree that it
would need to be made configurable, I'm not sure anyone will bother with
that, I know I won't). Like I said in my original mail, all I am
suggesting is leaving it open so that if a user wants this feature we
can point them at the patch, or better still they will find it without
asking questions on the lists. If the issue is closed they are unlikely
to find it.
> ...and we *do not* need pelt in views, that is not true. Why do you mean
> that?
If you want people to adopt views I strongly recommend that we have a
view that looks the same as pelt. Look at the number of sites on our
example sites that use it. Most of those sites will will not switch to
views unless at the point of switching their site looks the same as it
does not. Then some will start playing with views and customising their
sites look and feel because they will discover how easy it is.
Those who are not using pelt are, in most cases, using a customised
version of it. If you provide a view that looks like pelt it will be
much easier for them to recreate their own site in views. Therefore,
they are more likely to migrate to views.
If you do not provide this migration route most existing users will
stick with the deprecated skin for quite some time. There is no
motivation to move from it since they are perfectly happy with what they
have. The fact that it is cool, whizz bang technology and really easy to
customise is irrelevant if they are happy with what they have.
If we want to bring our existing user base to views we have to make it
very easy for them. This means, in my opinion, that we need a view that
looks exactly like pelt.
> Anyway I am -1 to reopen this issue and apply it to skins because that
> means we have to add yet another property to the skinconf,...
I said reopen, not necessarily apply it, I agree with David that it
would need to be configurable before we applied it and that involves
spending time on it, which I agree is not a good thing, our dev time
should go into views. However, the fact that we are deprecating the skin
does not mean we should put contributions in a place where they will not
be seen by existing users.
Ross