Well I never knew my little post a while back would be such a catalyst for such a heated discussion :-) But it looks like progress is being made, so that it is awesome! Just like to point out I do agree with the direction this thread is taking and have a few comments from. On 1/6/06, Dries Buytaert <dries@buytaert.net> wrote:
* move the default files location under sites/<host>/files
I think everyone agrees with this one. If so, Ber can start working on this.
Bravo, this should indeed be the default.
* add a sites/all directory for all non-core modules, which should be available for all hosts
Is 'all' better than the current 'default', or will we have both 'all' and 'default'?
I think we might need both. I see this scenario: most users download and install Drupal and only use it for one site. It should be easy for them to setup *just* one Drupal site, so we need a 'default'. However, there are still plenty of users that will want to add more sites along with Drupal. In this case, they are going to want many of their sites to share the same modules, so we do need a shared directory, or 'all' in that case.
How about the simpler:
sites/all/javascript sites/all/stylesheets sites/all/images
I like this much better and it fits in with above. That way the 'default' site can make use of these as needed and as a user extends their Drupal install with more sites, they don't have to worry about moving things around or sharing files. It's already done for them. Now however, this should not above be confused with modules. I still believe as others have pointed out, that all module specific CSS, JS, etc should be in that specific directory. It would be *much* too hard at this stage to extract, move, copy etc files into their respective positions. However, if a web based installer becomes a reality, we can still use the above scheme and have all module specific CSS and JS files go into sites/<host>/javascript etc for easy loading, if need be. It would make it easier in that case, but, on second thought, is that more beneficial then keeping them in their respective module folder? Probably not, but food for thought. ted