On Nov 8, 2007 3:14 PM, Alberto Valverde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike Orr wrote: > > Plus, what if Pylons adds another SOP later? > > This is reminds me of something that I've sometimes wondered about > pylons: wouldn't having just a single SOP where all the app's context > can be stored simplify much the implementation? > > It would certainly make the API a little bit more ugly though (eg: > pylons.app.g, pylons.app.buffet, etc..) but it would be easier to > explain to users that everything under pylons.app is somewhat special > and have the benefit of being just a single object that needs to be > saved in case the app serving a request is to be paused and resumed later.
That's a good idea. A slightly longer import is no big deal, and it's done in the base template anyway so controllers wouldn't even notice the difference. 'app' is not the right word though because it connotes the Pylons application instance. app_context, sop, ... pylons.sop has a nice ring to it. :) But what about pylons.config? It's valid even when a request isn't active. So something like pylons.app_context.config wouldn't quite be accurate. -- Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
