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 2005/09/14 11:12:48 UTC
[Proposal] Design meeting focus
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 18:17 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
> The next thing is that we need to decide
> what we want to achieve from the meeting.
1) future design for forrest
2) task involves
3) roadmap
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> ...
>
>>What are we trying to achieve by using XHTML2 in the core?
>
>
> When I proposed XHTML2, my main goal was to eliminate our own DTD
> management and enhancement work by using a standard DTD and retiring xdoc.
Yep, we covered that one, and a few others. We need to report on the
decisions made on the IRC session, I'm too busy right now, but will be
back early next week.
In the meantime David has put the log up at
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/forrest/events/forrest-tuesdays/20050918-log.txt?view=markup
Ross
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
...
> What are we trying to achieve by using XHTML2 in the core?
When I proposed XHTML2, my main goal was to eliminate our own DTD
management and enhancement work by using a standard DTD and retiring xdoc.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
>
>>David Crossley wrote:
>>
>>>The original topic was how to implement
>>>views/xhtml2/internals. I reckon that they
>>>are all entwined.
>>
>>I've said it before and I'll say it again, they aren't necessarily,
>>and I mean *technically*, entwined. I've tried, and apparently
>>failed, in several emails to describe in technical terms why they are
>>not entwined, but it's essentially for how Thorsten says, "views *are*
>>*just* replacing site2xhtml.xsl of leather-dev". If we view the
>>resultant html of document2html as an Interface (in oo terms), then
>>that's what views are programmed to and that's why they aren't
>>entwined.
>
>
> Thanks to that paragraph i now understand heaps more
> about views. I was seeing views as covering many,
> if not all, of the steps in xdocs/TR/2005/WD-forrest10.html
> Glad it is more confined. That means we can do things
> in stages.
Hmmmm... I'll resist discussing now other than to say it would be well
worth while reading my discussion of *which* stages of the TR views
cover and compare that to the current implementation. I think we need to
discuss my what I said in my email in some detail, if I have that wrong
then there is no real argument about how to implmeent XHTML2 in core.
>>If we want to entwine them as a dev-decision, then that is obviously a
>>different story. I just want to be clear that technically, it is not
>>[in the current views implementation] entwined. I sincerely hope that
>>Thorsten will correct me if I've mis-spoke here.
>
>
> I am trying to ensure that if views do have any
> requirements regarding xhtml2, then these are
> defined as early as possible. If there are not,
> then great, it makes the job simpler.
>
> Would someone please attempt to define
> what we will discuss tomorrow.
My para above indicates one thing I think is important for discussion.
Here is what I wanted to start the session with:
"What are we trying to achieve by using XHMTL2 in the core?"
I suspect I will then follow up with the question below, whether I do or
not depends on the answers to the first question:
"What do we achieve by doing a partial implementation of XHTML2 in core?"
The reason for starting with these questions is that *can* does not mean
*should* and I hope that the answers to these questions will help us
understand whether we *should* do this in stages.
I guess that boils down to a question of what we gain/lose by doing it
in stages within our increasingly restrictive architecture or as a
rewrite of that architecture for an upcoming 1.0 release.
I'll repeat my opening question now, so people can think about it before
the IRC session:
What are we trying to achieve by using XHTML2 in the core?
Ross
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El dom, 18-09-2005 a las 09:25 +1000, David Crossley escribió:
> Tim Williams wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > >
> > > The original topic was how to implement
> > > views/xhtml2/internals. I reckon that they
> > > are all entwined.
> >
> > I've said it before and I'll say it again, they aren't necessarily,
> > and I mean *technically*, entwined. I've tried, and apparently
> > failed, in several emails to describe in technical terms why they are
> > not entwined, but it's essentially for how Thorsten says, "views *are*
> > *just* replacing site2xhtml.xsl of leather-dev". If we view the
> > resultant html of document2html as an Interface (in oo terms), then
> > that's what views are programmed to and that's why they aren't
> > entwined.
>
> Thanks to that paragraph i now understand heaps more
> about views. I was seeing views as covering many,
> if not all, of the steps in xdocs/TR/2005/WD-forrest10.html
> Glad it is more confined. That means we can do things
> in stages.
>
Tim are right for the current implementation.
I have a version of views of on my laptop (which is currently
broken :( and which I have to fix till tonight) where I started to
change that. Actually that is only half truth. The design on the code, I
still need to check in, is what I said a refactored version of views
should look like
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=112616664615538&w=2).
I as well got rid of the leather-dev dependency by copy and paste the
leather-dev and common skin xslt into the internal.view plugin. Now this
pipes/xslt have to be slimed down because half of them are not needed
IMO. Further the refactoring should be done with where possible
contracts and not with yass (yet another stylesheet). That forces us to
look in the existing xsl and design them as contracts will get rid of
overhead code.
There is a change of paradigma in the dispatcher part.
<map:match pattern="**.model.xml">
<map:generate src="{lm:{0}}"/>
<map:serialize type="xml"/>
<map:match/>
Everything have to be requested through the views nuggets
(aka prepare-view-nugget.{1}).
That is the dispatcher or filter of the processing pipeline.
e.g. tab-* or menu-* is now requested as *.navigation.xml by
a contract and is not included in the default pm. Actually there
is no default pm anymore. You get what your view requests!
theme
|
\|/
core (views) -> output plugin (views can bypass them) -> output
| /|\
\|/ |
+------------------+ +-----------------+
|forrest:contracts |--->| input plugin |
|forrest:properties|<---|src (+navigation)|
+------------------+ +-----------------+
> > If we want to entwine them as a dev-decision, then that is obviously a
> > different story. I just want to be clear that technically, it is not
> > [in the current views implementation] entwined. I sincerely hope that
> > Thorsten will correct me if I've mis-spoke here.
>
> I am trying to ensure that if views do have any
> requirements regarding xhtml2, then these are
> defined as early as possible. If there are not,
> then great, it makes the job simpler.
The xhtml2 move means that the contracts are not getting xml but xhtml2
as entrance format. That is basically it. ...but having said that raises
the question where we want to apply xhtml2? Should the tab-* and menu-*
as well output xhtml2? If so that means we have to refactor this pipes
and their stylesheets. How we should do it and whether we should first
move views to core and then using them to enable xhtml2 (refactoring the
core) should be one big point in our discussion in 3 hours.
salu2
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Tim Williams wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >
> > The original topic was how to implement
> > views/xhtml2/internals. I reckon that they
> > are all entwined.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again, they aren't necessarily,
> and I mean *technically*, entwined. I've tried, and apparently
> failed, in several emails to describe in technical terms why they are
> not entwined, but it's essentially for how Thorsten says, "views *are*
> *just* replacing site2xhtml.xsl of leather-dev". If we view the
> resultant html of document2html as an Interface (in oo terms), then
> that's what views are programmed to and that's why they aren't
> entwined.
Thanks to that paragraph i now understand heaps more
about views. I was seeing views as covering many,
if not all, of the steps in xdocs/TR/2005/WD-forrest10.html
Glad it is more confined. That means we can do things
in stages.
> If we want to entwine them as a dev-decision, then that is obviously a
> different story. I just want to be clear that technically, it is not
> [in the current views implementation] entwined. I sincerely hope that
> Thorsten will correct me if I've mis-spoke here.
I am trying to ensure that if views do have any
requirements regarding xhtml2, then these are
defined as early as possible. If there are not,
then great, it makes the job simpler.
Would someone please attempt to define
what we will discuss tomorrow.
-David
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
On 9/16/05, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > Tim Williams wrote:
> > > Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > > Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > > > >David Crossley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>The next thing is that we need to decide
> > > > >>what we want to achieve from the meeting.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) future design for forrest
> > > > > 2) task involves
> > > > > 3) roadmap
> > > >
> > > > I'd rather be much narrower.
> > > >
> > > > - how to implement XHTML2 in the core
> > >
> > > Before we get there, let's determine what it means to implement XHTML2
> > > in the core.
> >
> > I thought this session is for clarify this. I did not put specific task
> > on the initial list because we need to narrow everything down together.
> > The ideal outcome of this session would be we have major tasks and teams
> > that want to implement it.
>
> The original topic was how to implement
> views/xhtml2/internals. I reckon that they
> are all entwined.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, they aren't necessarily,
and I mean *technically*, entwined. I've tried, and apparently
failed, in several emails to describe in technical terms why they are
not entwined, but it's essentially for how Thorsten says, "views *are*
*just* replacing site2xhtml.xsl of leather-dev". If we view the
resultant html of document2html as an Interface (in oo terms), then
that's what views are programmed to and that's why they aren't
entwined.
If we want to entwine them as a dev-decision, then that is obviously a
different story. I just want to be clear that technically, it is not
[in the current views implementation] entwined. I sincerely hope that
Thorsten will correct me if I've mis-spoke here.
--tim
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 08:04 -0400, Tim Williams wrote:
>
>>On 9/14/05, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 18:17 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The next thing is that we need to decide
>>>>>what we want to achieve from the meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>1) future design for forrest
>>>>2) task involves
>>>>3) roadmap
>>>
>>>I'd rather be much narrower.
>>>
>>>- how to implement XHTML2 in the core
>>
>>Before we get there, let's determine what it means to implement XHTML2
>>in the core.
>
>
> I thought this session is for clarify this. I did not put specific task
> on the initial list because we need to narrow everything down together.
> The ideal outcome of this session would be we have major tasks and teams
> that want to implement it.
I didn't realise you were limiting the scope to XHTML2, that's all good.
Tim, I agree that starting a discussion via email won't hurt. I'll start
another thread to try an sumamrise what I think the direction in the
XHTML2 plugin is. Perhaps, if you could give a similar overview of your
own direction in the work you have done and Thorsten can do the same for
his view. It will be better if we all do this without commenting on the
other approaches, lets just try and make our ideas as clear as possible.
Ross
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
> > Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > > >David Crossley wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>The next thing is that we need to decide
> > > >>what we want to achieve from the meeting.
> > > >
> > > > 1) future design for forrest
> > > > 2) task involves
> > > > 3) roadmap
> > >
> > > I'd rather be much narrower.
> > >
> > > - how to implement XHTML2 in the core
> >
> > Before we get there, let's determine what it means to implement XHTML2
> > in the core.
>
> I thought this session is for clarify this. I did not put specific task
> on the initial list because we need to narrow everything down together.
> The ideal outcome of this session would be we have major tasks and teams
> that want to implement it.
The original topic was how to implement
views/xhtml2/internals. I reckon that they
are all entwined. That is why i think that we
need to collaboratively decide how to approach it.
Maybe we won't come away with a list of tasks.
Just a common vision would be good.
To put it into one sentence:
"Decide how to approach xhtml2/views".
-David
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 08:04 -0400, Tim Williams wrote:
> On 9/14/05, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 18:17 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
> > >
> > >>The next thing is that we need to decide
> > >>what we want to achieve from the meeting.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) future design for forrest
> > > 2) task involves
> > > 3) roadmap
> >
> > I'd rather be much narrower.
> >
> > - how to implement XHTML2 in the core
>
> Before we get there, let's determine what it means to implement XHTML2
> in the core.
I thought this session is for clarify this. I did not put specific task
on the initial list because we need to narrow everything down together.
The ideal outcome of this session would be we have major tasks and teams
that want to implement it.
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
On 9/14/05, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 18:17 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
> >
> >>The next thing is that we need to decide
> >>what we want to achieve from the meeting.
> >
> >
> > 1) future design for forrest
> > 2) task involves
> > 3) roadmap
>
> I'd rather be much narrower.
>
> - how to implement XHTML2 in the core
Before we get there, let's determine what it means to implement XHTML2
in the core.
--tim
Re: [Proposal] Design meeting focus
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 18:17 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
>
>>The next thing is that we need to decide
>>what we want to achieve from the meeting.
>
>
> 1) future design for forrest
> 2) task involves
> 3) roadmap
I'd rather be much narrower.
- how to implement XHTML2 in the core
Ross