Hi Ed,
for me it is OK to use the term multi-templating, even if we go beyond the current proposal, because:
- we actually need one term (I'm not the only one mixing skinning and multi-templating)
- the world seems to be waiting for something under that term.
Ciao Frank
Am 03.08.2012 um 23:43 schrieb Edward Burns:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:01:26 -0700, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com> said:
>
> EB> While the discussion about passthrough attributes (including data-*
> EB> attributes) continues, I'd like to get discussion started on 971-Multi
> EB> Templating. Here's the commit log for a commit I did on Tuesday. Please
> EB> take a look and comment.
>
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:34:38 +0200, Frank Caputo <frank_at_frankcaputo.de> said:
>
> FC> I think the spec needs a more generic solution.
>
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:15:10 +0200, Frank Caputo <frank_at_frankcaputo.de> said:
>
> FC> since there are no followups on my mail I'd like to explain my
> FC> concerns:
>
>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:28:14 +0200, Frank Caputo <frank_at_frankcaputo.de> said:
>
> FC> I'd like to have skinning, which could form the basis for multi-tenancy.
>
> Hello Frank,
>
> I'm trying to get this one rolling again too. Your mails from 23 and 25
> June both mention the terms "skinning", "multi-tenancy", and
> "multi-templating". These are three different things and it's important
> that we get the terms straight.
>
> "multi-tenancy"
>
> From the perspective of JSF, I've been looking at multi-tenancy as a
> capability we put into the hands of developers building on top of JSF.
> I want to make it possible for people to build an app where per-tenant
> customizations can be made at deployment time. Mult-tenancy intersects
> with multi-templating only so much as multi-templating makes it possible
> to build software where the template actually used can be decided at
> deployment time, for example. That said, I'd really like to leave
> multi-tenancy out of the discussion and just keep it as a cross-cutting
> concern that we validate from time to time.
>
> Now, we come to "skinning" and "multi-templating". I've been looking at
> these as two different things, but I'm concerned it might be harmful to
> look at them that way. There are areas of overlap between the two
> concepts. In any case, here's how I see it.
>
> Skinning is all about the "look" of the entire app. An app can have
> only one skin. A skin applies to the entire app and has to do with
> colors, fonts, rounded corners, images and overall appearance. Skins
> say how things look, but they don't say where they should go. For
> example, a skin might make it so the top level menu has a blue
> background with black text in an Arial-looking font, but it doesn't say
> if the menu should be on the top, the left, or the right of the view.
>
> Multi-templating is about the arrangement of the things within the app.
> It *does* say where the menu should go. An app can have any number of
> multi-templates operating within it, some of which only apply when the
> user is navigating a certain section of the app. I'm imagining a system
> where there can be a root multi-template, and any number of sub
> multi-templates.
>
> Question: Does it make sense to continue to separate the concepts of
> skinning and multi-templating, or should we just go ahead and declare
> right now that multi-templating is a super-set of skinning and stop
> talking about skinning altogether, just framing the discussion in terms
> of multi-templating?
>
> Ed
>
> --
> | edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
> | homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
>