You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Diwaker Gupta <di...@apache.org> on 2005/08/04 10:08:42 UTC
user-friendly plugin names
The naming convention for the plugins is fine, but I think it would be nice if
users are able to declare required plugins using simpler names like "pdf",
"text", "docbook" and so on.
We can figure out what simple names exactly to use later. I just wanted to see
what people feel about this? It should be trivial to implement (though I have
_no_ clue how! :-D), and I think it'll make config much less intimidating
(even I get scared typing org.apache.forrest.input.viewHelper.xhtml.ls)
Diwaker
--
Web/Blog/Gallery: http://floatingsun.net
Re: user-friendly plugin names
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Diwaker Gupta wrote:
>The naming convention for the plugins is fine, but I think it would be nice if
>users are able to declare required plugins using simpler names like "pdf",
>"text", "docbook" and so on.
>
>We can figure out what simple names exactly to use later. I just wanted to see
>what people feel about this? It should be trivial to implement (though I have
>_no_ clue how! :-D), and I think it'll make config much less intimidating
>(even I get scared typing org.apache.forrest.input.viewHelper.xhtml.ls)
>
>Diwaker
>
>
Look for cocoon roles. BTW, I like the idea. :-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: user-friendly plugin names
Posted by Ferdinand Soethe <fe...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>How do you avoid name conflicts given that Forrest does not have a
>>>monopoly on plugin publication?
+1
> I'm not convinced that the hassle of entering the plugin name once into
> forrest properties makes this worth the effort.
+1
--
Ferdinand Soethe
Re: user-friendly plugin names
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Diwaker Gupta wrote:
> On Thursday 04 August 2005 3:04 pm, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>>How do you avoid name conflicts given that Forrest does not have a
>>monopoly on plugin publication?
>>
>>That is what if I call a plugin foo and Joe calls his plugin foo and
>>then Forrest creates one called foo?
>
>
> Hmm, I guess that does create a problem. Can we atleast allow users to specify
> a user-defined map that binds canonical plugin names with simple names?
>
> In any case, I'd like to play around with this idea personally. Can someone
> please point the right direction... what would be the neatest way of
> implementing something like this?
I'm not convinced that the hassle of entering the plugin name once into
forrest properties makes this worth the effort. However, if you itch is
strong enough then you should start at the "init-plugins" target of
main/targets/plugins.xml
(note there is an open issue to remove all the logic from this ant
script and place it in an Ant task. Ant scripts should not really
contain complex logic like this).
Ross
Re: user-friendly plugin names
Posted by Diwaker Gupta <di...@apache.org>.
On Thursday 04 August 2005 3:04 pm, Ross Gardler wrote:
> How do you avoid name conflicts given that Forrest does not have a
> monopoly on plugin publication?
>
> That is what if I call a plugin foo and Joe calls his plugin foo and
> then Forrest creates one called foo?
Hmm, I guess that does create a problem. Can we atleast allow users to specify
a user-defined map that binds canonical plugin names with simple names?
In any case, I'd like to play around with this idea personally. Can someone
please point the right direction... what would be the neatest way of
implementing something like this?
Diwaker
--
Web/Blog/Gallery: http://floatingsun.net
Re: user-friendly plugin names
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Addi wrote:
> Diwaker Gupta wrote:
>
>> The naming convention for the plugins is fine, but I think it would be
>> nice if users are able to declare required plugins using simpler names
>> like "pdf", "text", "docbook" and so on.
>>
>> We can figure out what simple names exactly to use later. I just
>> wanted to see what people feel about this? It should be trivial to
>> implement (though I have _no_ clue how! :-D), and I think it'll make
>> config much less intimidating (even I get scared typing
>> org.apache.forrest.input.viewHelper.xhtml.ls)
>>
>> Diwaker
>>
>>
> Yup, I have to say I agree. It is also a pain when going to the plugin
> dir in linux to manually install the plugin because I like to use tab to
> finish out long filenames but I pretty much have to type the whole thing
> in since they all start with the same long name before getting to the
> actual useful part of the name.
How do you avoid name conflicts given that Forrest does not have a
monopoly on plugin publication?
That is what if I call a plugin foo and Joe calls his plugin foo and
then Forrest creates one called foo?
Ross
Re: user-friendly plugin names
Posted by Cyriaque Dupoirieux <Cy...@pcotech.fr>.
Addi a écrit :
> Diwaker Gupta wrote:
>
>> The naming convention for the plugins is fine, but I think it would
>> be nice if users are able to declare required plugins using simpler
>> names like "pdf", "text", "docbook" and so on.
>>
>> We can figure out what simple names exactly to use later. I just
>> wanted to see what people feel about this? It should be trivial to
>> implement (though I have _no_ clue how! :-D), and I think it'll make
>> config much less intimidating (even I get scared typing
>> org.apache.forrest.input.viewHelper.xhtml.ls)
>>
>> Diwaker
>>
>>
> Yup, I have to say I agree. It is also a pain when going to the
> plugin dir in linux to manually install the plugin because I like to
> use tab to finish out long filenames but I pretty much have to type
> the whole thing in since they all start with the same long name before
> getting to the actual useful part of the name.
I think somethink like "cd *pdf" in $FORREST_HOME/plugins drives you to
"org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.pdf " - it's not so long ;-)
Cyriaque,
> - Addi
>
>
>
Re: user-friendly plugin names
Posted by Addi <ad...@rocktreesky.com>.
Diwaker Gupta wrote:
>The naming convention for the plugins is fine, but I think it would be nice if
>users are able to declare required plugins using simpler names like "pdf",
>"text", "docbook" and so on.
>
>We can figure out what simple names exactly to use later. I just wanted to see
>what people feel about this? It should be trivial to implement (though I have
>_no_ clue how! :-D), and I think it'll make config much less intimidating
>(even I get scared typing org.apache.forrest.input.viewHelper.xhtml.ls)
>
>Diwaker
>
>
Yup, I have to say I agree. It is also a pain when going to the plugin
dir in linux to manually install the plugin because I like to use tab to
finish out long filenames but I pretty much have to type the whole thing
in since they all start with the same long name before getting to the
actual useful part of the name.
- Addi