Naming convention in Locationmap

[Ross Gardler <ro...@gardler.org>]

I've started to refactor the sitemaps to use the locationmap. I'm using 
the naming convention that Tim suggested during the first Forrest 
Tuesday (I've added his notes to the locationmap document in 0.8 
site-author).

At the time I agreed to the convention, however, I'm not so sure 
anymore. Here's an example of where I'm not sure it is a good idea:

{forrest:stylesheets}/upgrade-skinconf.xsl

would become something like:

transform.skinconf.new-skinconf

This is considerably more verbose and I'm not at all sure that it tells 
us anything new. If we just use the filename ("upgrade-skinconf.xsl") we 
appear to have the same information, but we do not necessarily imply 
anything about the location (which is Tims justification for this).

What we lose by using this naming convention is the ability to look at 
the sitemap and then go straight to the file on disk, we would have to 
then open the locationmap to see what the actual filename was.

What do others think?

Ross

Re: Naming convention in Locationmap

[Ferdinand Soethe <fe...@apache.org>]

Ross Gardler wrote:

> {forrest:stylesheets}/upgrade-skinconf.xsl

> would become something like:

> transform.skinconf.new-skinconf

I find the second version clearer and I think it
would be a good idea to use such a naming convention as consistently
as possible.

--
Ferdinand Soethe

Re: Naming convention in Locationmap

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

David Crossley wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:

...

>>What we lose by using this naming convention is the ability to look at 
>>the sitemap and then go straight to the file on disk, we would have to 
>>then open the locationmap to see what the actual filename was.
>>
>>What do others think?
> 
> 
> Could we generate a page from the locationmap,
> similar to the generated linkmap.html page, and
> show the list in various different index order.
> That may be sufficient to make up for the loss
> of readability.

+1

Ross

Re: Naming convention in Locationmap

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Ross Gardler wrote:
> I've started to refactor the sitemaps to use the locationmap. I'm using 
> the naming convention that Tim suggested during the first Forrest 
> Tuesday (I've added his notes to the locationmap document in 0.8 
> site-author).

I published the changes so that we can see the proposal:
http://forrest.apache.org/docs_0_80/locationmap.html

> At the time I agreed to the convention, however, I'm not so sure 
> anymore. Here's an example of where I'm not sure it is a good idea:
> 
> {forrest:stylesheets}/upgrade-skinconf.xsl
> 
> would become something like:
> 
> transform.skinconf.new-skinconf
> 
> This is considerably more verbose and I'm not at all sure that it tells 
> us anything new. If we just use the filename ("upgrade-skinconf.xsl") we 
> appear to have the same information, but we do not necessarily imply 
> anything about the location (which is Tims justification for this).
> 
> What we lose by using this naming convention is the ability to look at 
> the sitemap and then go straight to the file on disk, we would have to 
> then open the locationmap to see what the actual filename was.
> 
> What do others think?

Could we generate a page from the locationmap,
similar to the generated linkmap.html page, and
show the list in various different index order.
That may be sufficient to make up for the loss
of readability.

-David