On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:
> > I have thought about that but: > - having a plugin folder means web2py would have to look for models in > multiple places. It could me mimicked in admin (the developers should > not see the plugin_* files under the [design] page but user a reparate > plugin page where model/views/controllers/etc are organized by name. > I think that is a trivial implementation detail - the important thing is which structure makes more sense; "special naming" is brittle, and 35+ years experience makes me whince (albeit mildly in this case) against it. I think this needs more thinking, more reason than "oh - I would have to change web2py code!" .... ;-) > - Why change the programming model and use a class? > In a word: encapsulation and structure. All the reason in the world. Everyplace people ask the same questions over and over (discounting for the moment those new web2py-ers who are not programming professionals) is because of a structural reason. Yarko > > Massimo > > > 2) having plugins like a class > > On Oct 1, 11:41 am, Yarko Tymciurak <yark...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I generally like the concept, but am uncomfortable with the structure (or > > lack of) of the plugin. > > > > For example - plugin_comment I would prefer to see as in a directory - > so > > that distribution and installation would be simpler (as well as coding). > > The naming convention (while good, quick for proof of concept) I would > like > > to see more thought on. I would prefer to see an application folder > > "plugins" with all the requisite folders - models, controllers, etc. - > where > > you could install "comments" and "rankings" etc. (for example). It > might > > be interesting to have site-wide (e.g. accross applications) plugins, > where > > if your plugin is not found in the app area, then it is looked for in the > > global area (so, perhaps there would be a web2py/applications folder, and > a > > parallel web2py/components folder). > > > > From a programming perspective, I would prefer to see this managed as > > classes, so for example I would have a new comments class which is a > Plugin > > (or Component - I actually like that term better), but I haven't thought > > through this completely. This would probably change all sorts of things, > > perhaps even encapsulating the models and controllers (but that may be a > bit > > much). > > > > In any case, this is a nice start, and I would like to think about it > some > > more. Perhaps we should have an alpha version, and collect experiences > for > > a while. > > > > - Yarko > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Pynthon <omar.webs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think the proposed system is minimally disruptive, programmers do > > > not need to know anything about AJAX/JSON > > > > > That sounds very good. I watched the video and it looks very good! > > > > > 2009/10/1 mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> > > > > >> I just mean that if we want plugin components to return JSON instead > > >> of using the proposed mechanism, than people programming plugins would > > >> not be able to return a dict() and have it rendered by a view as they > > >> are used to, we would have to create a new programming paradigm and > > >> new functions (API) to deal with it. > > > > >> I think the proposed system is minimally disruptive, programmers do > > >> not need to know anything about AJAX/JSON and I should be able to > > >> handle it with a single new chapter in the book. ;-) > > > > >> Massimo > > > > >> On Oct 1, 10:03 am, Pynthon Pynthon <forumx...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Maybe I did not understand the word API but that means you need to > > >> rebuild > > >> > everything? Or do you mean a new json API? > > > > >> > Sorry :$. > > > > >> > 2009/10/1 mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> > > > > >> > > One rarely needs to return metadata (js/flash) with response and > with > > >> > > the proposed mechanism one would not need any special API to > create a > > >> > > plugin. If using json the response would have to be encoded in > json > > >> > > and this would require new api. > > > > >> > > On Oct 1, 9:25 am, AndrewLoot <andrew.luetg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > Whats the benefit of using headers for inter-component > communication > > >> > > > why not pass a json object in with the response? > > > > > -- > > > Please visit my blog pynthon.naar.info > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
