though the content:// makes it easier from a programming point of view,
if you take the underlying code it takes to generate the output, I don't
think you will find much speed enhancement.
Maybe a seperate thread on top down Content management would be in
order, and this topic would be covered under that.
I propose a design review of the Content Component.
Adrian Crum sent the following on 7/17/2012 9:47 PM:
On 7/18/2012 4:19 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
On 18/07/2012, at 8:09 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 7/17/2012 2:47 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
The next steps for the future will be to move out of the framework
the folders in the "images" application that are specific to
applications (somewhere under runtime seems a good approach).
Some of the application-specific content could be used by other
applications, so it should stay in the resources component.
Anything that is truly application-specific should be kept in the
application. The application-specific content can be added to the
application's URL path. If that causes problems with other
applications trying to access it (I'm thinking of the product
content), then we might need to re-engineer some things to
accommodate that. Putting content in the runtime folder sounds odd
to me.
The goal that I would like to achieve in the long term is the
following: the framework/applications folders, once deployed should
be read only and should not contain files that are generated at
runtime; at the moment the images folder is an exception because,
for example, when you upload an image the image is stored under
framework/images/webapp/images (by default); for this I think that
runtime would be a better fit. On the other hand I agree that static
resources could be hosted in the respective component.
But I am not planning to work on this sometime soon... we have time
to think.
I know the purpose of the images web app was to provide the
capability to host static content separately, and there are things
like Freemarker transforms and such that point to that static
content. The problem is, static content might be hosted in more than
one place, or in more than one way (in a content repository). I'm
thinking along the same path as BJ - maybe static content should be
accessed through the Content component or a similar mechanism. Then
the static content could reside anywhere.
I agree that uploaded files need their own folder. Again, that could
be handled by the Content component or a similar mechanism. Uploaded
files going into the runtime folder makes sense.
-Adrian
For busy sites you really don't want to be serving static content via
OFBiz. Apache or Tomcat are much better at that than we will ever be.
Regards
Scott
Agreed. But there are also things like product brochures or owners
manuals that are not simple gif files - they are documents under version
control and in some cases are kept in an existing content repository
outside of OFBiz.
Maybe we could have a protocol similar to our "component://" protocol
that makes it easy to reference content. Something like:
content://static/images/smiley.gif
content://repo/brochures/Widget.pdf
etc...
-Adrian
