Thorsten Scherler wrote:
El mar, 03-01-2006 a las 14:14 +0000, Ross Gardler escribió:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
El mar, 03-01-2006 a las 13:25 +1100, David Crossley escribió:
Ross Gardler wrote:
I propose that themes be distributed as plugins rather than having them
all in the themer plugin. ...
...
Resuming all above, I am with you that we need a system to package
themes and make them downloadable but disagree about the overhead to do
it with a plugin.
What overhead? Specifics please.
You would just need
forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.theme.Coat/src/documentation/resources/themes/coat/* forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.theme.Coat/src/documentation/resources/themes/coat.fv
everything else is overhead.
Sure, everything else is optional in the plugin installation process, or
can easily be made optional, it's just a modification of the ant script.
However, don't forget the docs stuff. I want to see decent docs for
themes too.
Your suggestion of adding docs to the themer directory plugin does not
work since this means all themes have to be hosted here at Forrest. We
need a mechanism that allows local sites to use their own themes, and
hopefully publish them as well.
Note that I already addressed the point about docs, which should be
removed from the download and packaged separately. This is easily done
by adding an <exclude...> pattern to the ant script.
Note that things like input.xmap, locationmap.xml etc. are only used if
they are present.
Yeah, this sentence made me think whether we want to allow themes to
provide a sitemap.xmap?
I don't think so, as you say a theme is *.fv and *.css files. If a theme
needs to do processing of the data then it is really an output plugin
isn't it? However, keeping the download mechanism the same gives us
flexibility should a use case for arise.
I agree as well on the naming convention, so how can we use the old
fashion skin download mechanism for themes?
The plugin download mechanism *is* the original skin download mechanism
(with versioning added).
Yeah, but the problem with using it directly as plugin is that the list
of required plugins is growing to the unreadable.
We don't have to list it as a plugin. Different naming convention,
different descriptor file, different index page, same download mechanism.
Anyway I am fine with using plugins directly but with another template
like you suggested in your other reply to David.
My suggestion for a theme template would be:
org.apache.forrest.theme.X/sitemap.xmap (optional -> I am not even sure
whether we should allow that)
org.apache.forrest.theme.X/themes/x.fv
org.apache.forrest.theme.X/themes/x/*
or
org.apache.forrest.themes.X/x.fv
org.apache.forrest.themes.X/x/*
That is optimized with nearly no overhead.
BTW actually I changed the convention because a theme does not only have
to provide just *one* theme, but it can provide as many themes as it
wishes. It is a package of themes.
+1
Ross
