On Dec 2, 10:41 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > I agree that the scaffolding app should stay as a *.w2p. I also agree > that a name like scaffolding.w2p would be more appropriate (not > template.w2p since we call template something else). > > Nevertheless we cannot name and location of files that are documented > in the book.
.... you mean _change_ the name & location; yes, I agree (although it could be a link, an alias - a transition point).... but that's not too terribly important.... > > What if we create a mechanism so that when admin starts after an > upgrade, admin prompt the user for upgrading admin, welcome, examples? > This could be easy to implement. I think this would get the BEST of options [1] and [2], while avoiding any of the bad side effects (e.g. someone having changed something in their site would be encouraged, without having things overwritten). With this in mind, I think maybe a "still needs update" prompt, with a "don't remind me again for this upgrade" option would complete the packaging. - Yarko > > Massimo > > On Dec 2, 9:22 pm, Yarko Tymciurak <resultsinsoftw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Dec 2, 9:05 pm, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > > > > I use welcome.w2p when I am testing a new feature or bug, or attempting to > > > make a simple example/case study on a subject. > > > I agree - having something as fundamental as the base app template in > > one "capsule" (e.g. welcome.w2p) is important. There might be better > > ways, but one thing is clear - unwrapping this is a step in the > > opposite direction (e.g. option (1) has some strong CONS). > > > - Yarko > > > > -Thadeus > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:21 PM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 2, 8:19 pm, Richard <richar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I would be fine with (2) > > > > > > Do people use examples.w2p? > > > > > I do not know. > > > > > > When I need to find something out I search the book and this forum. > > > > > > On Dec 3, 11:04 am, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > For the future version of web2py.... > > > > > > > should we (1) continue to distribute admin.w2p, welcome.wp2, > > > > > > examples.w2p and unpack them on startup (and require --upgrade=yes > > > > > > on > > > > > > upgrade) or (2) should we just distribute the applications folder > > > > > > with > > > > > > unpacked apps? > > > > > > > The case (2) would simplify lots of stuff and avoid lots of > > > > > > problems. > > > > > > > I originally choose (1) because I thought people were going to > > > > > > modify > > > > > > admin and did not want an automatic upgrade of it. Some people for > > > > > > example edit /applications/admin/models/access.py > > > > > > > Pros? Cons? > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups > > > > "web2py-users" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<web2py%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web...@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.
