Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paths to templates

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Discussions at the Paneris newbox node ]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paths to templates

Posted by TimP pp MylesC on Sun May 9 10:56:18 1999

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: paths to templates posted by TimP pp WilliamC on May 09, 1999 at 10:55:01:

Distribution:	timp@paneris.co.uk

At 01:28 PM 4/14/99 +0100, William Chesters wrote:
>multiboard@paneris.co.uk writes:
> > New message at http://www.paneris.co.uk/system/newbox/messages/138.shtml
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re: paths to templates
> > From: Myles (mylesc@paneris.org) (194.112.47.112)
> >
> > All,
> >
> > We have definitely got the templates in ../sugar/templates. The
> > issue is about how we refer to them in the handlers. I prefer
> > the current "project/template.wm" but TimJ would prefer
> > "project/templates/template.wm" so that he doesn't have to do
> > an extra install step of moving the templates into a directory
> > (in the TemplatePath) called "sugar".
>
>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.
Well that's fair enough then.
>In any case I hope Chippy wasn't proposing hardwiring the directory
>name into 1000 different places in the source :) ?
This confuses me. We have to hardwire the directory name in the
source where-ever we load in a template anyway, don't we? Oh, are
you saying that we don't have to do that 1000 times, just 10?
Certainly true.
>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.)

Myles
______________________________________________________
Myles Chippendale - mylesc@paneris.org
Net Worker
MJ Chippendale Solutions
77 Hurst Street - 01865 791078
Oxford OX4 1HA
http://www.paneris.co.uk/mylesc.html
Proud to be part of the Paneris collective
http://www.paneris.co.uk/
______________________________________________________

>At 01:28 PM 4/14/99 +0100, William Chesters wrote:
>>multiboard@paneris.co.uk writes:
>> > New message at http://www.paneris.co.uk/system/newbox/messages/138.shtml
>> > 
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Re: paths to templates
>> > From:    Myles (mylesc@paneris.org) (194.112.47.112)
>> > 
>> > All,
>> > 
>> > We have definitely got the templates in ../sugar/templates. The
>> > issue is about how we refer to them in the handlers. I prefer
>> > the current "project/template.wm" but TimJ would prefer
>> > "project/templates/template.wm" so that he doesn't have to do
>> > an extra install step of moving the templates into a directory
>> > (in the TemplatePath) called "sugar".
>>
>>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.

>Well that's fair enough then.

>>In any case I hope Chippy wasn't proposing hardwiring the directory
>>name into 1000 different places in the source :) ?

>This confuses me. We have to hardwire the directory name in the
>source where-ever we load in a template anyway, don't we? Oh, are
>you saying that we don't have to do that 1000 times, just 10?
>Certainly true.

>>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.)

>
>Myles

>______________________________________________________

>Myles Chippendale            -  mylesc@paneris.org
>Net Worker
> MJ Chippendale Solutions
> 77 Hurst Street             -  01865 791078
> Oxford OX4 1HA

> http://www.paneris.co.uk/mylesc.html
> Proud to be part of the Paneris collective
> http://www.paneris.co.uk/
>______________________________________________________

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post a Followup ] [ Discussions at the Paneris newbox node ]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: paths to templates

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup