On Monday, 20 June 2016 21:29:11 UTC-4, Dave S wrote: > > > Perhaps my imagination is too small, but I'm failing to see a value in a > general concept of a wrapper. >
I am sure you have plenty of imagination. I might have said the opposite at some point, but I said "we", meaning "me". > I can see some value for the particular problem that opened the > discussion, but I'm missing a more general value. I admit to thinking > "tool in search of a problem", a design strategy I've been guilty in the > past. > > I agree. It may very well be the only use case. BTW, this does not make the subject less interesting. I feel that it makes it more interesting. > Also, you keep mentioning PHP's "include". I would answer with Python's > "import". > > Yes, I was thinking the same way. This might be weird at first and maybe obviously impossible and thus show my complete ignorance, but is it possible to move an entire application such as the welcome app into a module. So that an "empty" app could import that module and in that way be a wrapper over the welcome app? I might be able to answer the question myself. This would be like a test of my understand of the module concept, which I have not yet learned. But, if you give me the answer and why, I will take it. In a way, this is what is possible with PHP. > And finally, I would deprecate my suggestion in favor of a file in the > models directory or in favor the the routes.py changes, both suggestions > that Anthony offered. > > What suggestion? Oh, you meant the wrapper application. I did not see this as a suggestion for the use case. I saw this as a way to implement a wrapper application. As I said, it is up to the person who design the approach to make its choices. > I apologize for missing the point, and look forward to greater > understanding. > > The only fact that you said "I can see some value for the particular problem that opened the discussion" show that you do have some appreciation. Again, if it was the only use case, it would be interesting. If you definitively answer the question that it is not even useful for that use case, this will also be interesting. I believe that it is a fundamentally different approach, but being shown the opposite will be great. I do know why I want this approach naively. It is because I do not want to use space within the application folder to store the location of the config file. I do not want to assume anything outside the application folder. In particular, I do not want to rely on OS variables. I am OK to use the space of a wrapper application, because it is fundamentally different. It becomes like the application, but it is not, because it is a wrapper. There is something I like very much about this. It's like giving full control to the installer, because he designs the wrapper application, the entry point. I know that Anthony has given examples where we intercept the HTTP request. Yes, but it's different. It is not as clean, because ultimately it is still the application that receives the HTTP request, not a wrapper application. Also, it is a modification within the folder of the application. You could use tricks such as sym links, but it will not be the same. Conceptually, I see a difference and the difference does matter for me. -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
