Posted by TimP pp WilliamC on Sun May 9 10:55:01 1999
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: paths to templates posted by Myles on April 14, 1999 at 12:32:11:
| Distribution: | timp@paneris.co.uk |
|---|
I'm with TimJ on this one---the idea is that the directory structure
is the "package" structure, even for non-code files, and the same
structure is maintained in our installation directories, with a very
few exceptions. Those exceptions are specifically aimed at making it
possible to serve non-compiled content straight out of a working
directory. But in this case there is no conflict: the tidy thing is
also the convenient thing, so it seems positively perverse not to do
it even if it makes some of the names slightly longer.In any case I hope Chippy wasn't proposing hardwiring the directory
name into 1000 different places in the source :) ?If we want to start changing the structure of the namespace between
the working (dist) side and the inst side then we can make scripts to
do the necessary mappings ... (that's supposed to frighten everyone
off the idea).(Sorry about email, just fed up with Netscape eating all my memory.)