Better directory names

Next topic

Author	Message
James Ward	Sunday 01 February 2004 11:58:29 am I believe the directories created during installation could be more intuitive. Currently if I install a plain design with a user site called "foo" and an admin site called "foo_admin" I get a "foo" and "foo_admin" directory in the siteaccess directory. However the design files are stored in a directory called "plain", in my opinion it would make more sense for this design directory to be called "foo". Also any files uploaded to be used for "foo" will be stored in the var directory named "plain", again I feel it would make more sense to call this directory "foo". So we would end up with the following after install: /design/foo /siteaccess/foo /siteaccess/foo_admin /var/foo Anyone else think this makes more sense? I used to change the directory names manually but with more files being installed to the var directory during the setup this is starting to create problems. working at www.wardnet.com blogging at www.jamesward.ca
Harry Oosterveen	Sunday 01 February 2004 12:42:38 pm That would make sense if there is a one-to-one relation between sites and designs. This is not necessarily the case. I am working on a server where we host and maintain multiple sites. All admin sites use the same standard 'admin' design, only the front end of each site has a different design. Some sites come in several languages; from an eZ publish point of view, they are different sites (different siteaccess folders), but they share the same design.
James Ward	Sunday 01 February 2004 10:39:15 pm Good Point. What about the var directory then? Odds are each site access will have its own set of uploaded and cached files. Should the var directory not be renamed to reflect the site access name then? working at www.wardnet.com blogging at www.jamesward.ca

Author

Message

Sunday 01 February 2004 11:58:29 am

I believe the directories created during installation could be more intuitive. Currently if I install a plain design with a user site called "foo" and an admin site called "foo_admin" I get a "foo" and "foo_admin" directory in the siteaccess directory. However the design files are stored in a directory called "plain", in my opinion it would make more sense for this design directory to be called "foo". Also any files uploaded to be used for "foo" will be stored in the var directory named "plain", again I feel it would make more sense to call this directory "foo". So we would end up with the following after install:
/design/foo
/siteaccess/foo
/siteaccess/foo_admin
/var/foo

Anyone else think this makes more sense? I used to change the directory names manually but with more files being installed to the var directory during the setup this is starting to create problems.

working at www.wardnet.com
blogging at www.jamesward.ca

Harry Oosterveen

Sunday 01 February 2004 12:42:38 pm

That would make sense if there is a one-to-one relation between sites and designs. This is not necessarily the case.

I am working on a server where we host and maintain multiple sites. All admin sites use the same standard 'admin' design, only the front end of each site has a different design. Some sites come in several languages; from an eZ publish point of view, they are different sites (different siteaccess folders), but they share the same design.

James Ward

Sunday 01 February 2004 10:39:15 pm

Good Point.
What about the var directory then? Odds are each site access will have its own set of uploaded and cached files. Should the var directory not be renamed to reflect the site access name then?

working at www.wardnet.com
blogging at www.jamesward.ca