Stefano Mazzocchi wrote in the thread: Re: [Proposal] add DTDs to Apache website http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=107418821508273 > Juan Jose Pablos wrote: > > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > <htaccess stuf/> > > > >> Stefano, who has been waiting for some 18 months for somebody else to > >> come up with the idea of having forrest pregenerating the .htaccess > >> file to do some sort of poor-man multichannel or content negotiation, > >> but has lost hope so it's time to inject notion in the system. > > > > Stefano, who forgot to add that request on Jira, bugzilla or something > > similar, because he realized that people is not able to read his mind > > :-) > > nono, you guys don't get it: it was a social experiment about cross > pollination between the java/xml world and the httpd world.
I gather that you mean during the threads Re: on second thought: forrest must start dynamic? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=101450756132432 Re: Forrest: dynamic or static? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=106411342205648 > Forrest, by generating static stuff, is the closest thing to the > original HTTPd mindset. All the "fancy dynamic stuff" didn't catch up > over httpd, it was simply too painful to write a web application in C > and there are so many modules that can be useful all over the place. > > The rest was modules that glued other languages, but moved away large > chunks of the community. So much so that nowadays, very few web-app > power users are also httpd power users, because they isolate > themselves. > > Since forrest is now slowly taking over all apache.org web sites, this > exposes this project to all sort of different mindsets, I wanted to see > how long it would take for stronger httpd interaction to surface, but > it didn't happen. We agreed in those threads that these things were possible and suited our mission. However remember that Forrest was, and still is, short-staffed. When people inject great ideas occasionally, then move on, it may take a while to happen. Today's discussion might provide impetus. After we get our current skins sorted, we can probably start to utilise your .htaccess ideas when the build is destined for a webserver that is driven by an Apache httpd. > It's not criticism to the forrest community, not at all. I would say > it's criticism for those coming from a non-java/non-xml world: they > failed to provide the input that might have shaped the project in such > a way that would have pleased them more. > > Anyway, since David was ready to propose a massive URL change for DTDs Actually trying to solve a dilemma. Perhaps you didn't catch the earlier discussion in that proposal that lead to this issue. > I had to say something and the .htaccess magic is the way I would > solve many forrest issues that are now solved with hacky client-side > javascript. Thanks, we will try to use such techniques. > but, at the very end, I don't really care since i think that static > pregeneration of web sites will (very slowly but constantly) die out: > all web content will need some form of dynamism. > > But you need a bridge over this huge and nasty river. > > And this is what forrest is all about in my mind. > > -- > Stefano. To me, Forrest is an evolving bridge. We can use it to cross today's rivers, then keep making it more capable to deal with all rivers. It is a well-known fact that Apache infrastructure is not yet ready for dynamic webapps (though it is making giant leaps). Cocoon can still not be employed, let alone a dynamic Forrest. Please read the first paragraph on our website. We have not ruled out Forrest's ability to be dynamic. It is just that the dynamic bits must not compromise the default static capability. --David
