If it is possible I am in favor of relocating plug-ins to an extra folder since this would ease my development a lot. I develop plug-ins for multiple apps (e.g. a tracker plug-in) and I use version control. Right now I have to decide which project is taking control of developing the plug-in. It works for now but I will soon be at a point where I have two separate project with different people that both should help to develop the same plug-ins. An extra folder for the plugin would allow the plug-in to be under independent version control from the rest of the application.
Other than that I really like the current plug-in system. It is just like developing a normal web2py app, simple, nothing new! And if I read the branding discussion right this is what everybody (including me) loves about web2py. I would strongly advise against any solution that requires me to gain extra knowledge to create plug-ins. On Mar 12, 7:08 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > I think this is a different issue. If you relocate plugins but you > still have all code in plugins/<name>/models/<something>.py then they > would work no differently than now (they would be executed in > alphabetical order with the plugin name). To do what you ask you would > have to put plugin code in modules and import them (something you can > already do). The problem is that you would have to be very explicit > and import plugins. Installing them would not be enough and that I do > not like (at least not in the general case). > > On Mar 12, 10:36 am, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > > > > > If all plugins are designed to be class-like, then your example of > > plugins just need to inherit. > > > The only reason I would be in support for logically changing the > > location of plugins is the one of dependencies. > > > Meaning, if you have to specify to web2py when to load a plugin, and > > in what order... it can handle the dependencies and execute the needed > > ones first. > > > Dependencies are not hard, its quite simple to write some code to do > > this (as I do in py2jquery to handle javascript dependencies). As > > Massimo said, the difficulty is in the bytecode compiling. > > > I am not convinced there will be any overhead (the slowdown is the 99% > > database any ways). It just means web2py will need to be "smarter" > > about where stuff is. > > > -Thadeus > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:52 AM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > > The problem with framework level plugins is that if you pack the app > > > and unpack somewhere else then it will not work without the "framework > > > level" plugin installed separately. I do not think that is something > > > to encourage. Moreover different apps may reply on different versions > > > of the plugin and/or need different configuration. > > > > Anyway there are two things that can be done at framework level: 1) > > > put models in web2py/site-packages 2) framework level models can be > > > defined in modules and put there also; 3) framework level views and > > > static file can be stored in a new app designed at hoc for this > > > purpose and other app can use them too. > > > > Massimo > > > > On Mar 12, 8:36 am, Alex Fanjul <alex.fan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Just to clarify it: > > > >> Do we able to conservate my app (rewrited/extended) auth module/model, > > >> working alongside "superAuth" thadeus plugin, discarding your framework > > >> plugin and system Auth default one? > > >> Alex > > > >> El 12/03/2010 15:31, Alex Fanjul escribi : > > > >> > Ok Massimo, > > >> > I agree with you in it makes no sense to rewrite a lot of web2py code. > > > >> > Apart from that argument in favor, there is another I don't know if it > > >> > would be satisfied right now with plugin_name.py convention: > > > >> > -Imagine you write a *framework level plugin* to subsitute auths (or > > >> > whatever system feature) views/controllers/models. > > >> > -Imagine thadeusb write another *application level plugin* to do the > > >> > same called "superAuth" > > >> > -Imagine I write an application with an *only modules* extended auth > > >> > service with some more fields and stuffs. > > > >> > Do we able to conservate my app rewrited/extended auth module/model > > >> > over "superAuth" thadeus plugin, discarting system default one? > > > >> > Just thoughts, > > >> > Alex > > > >> > El 12/03/2010 14:01, mdipierro escribi : > > >> >> The location of plugins is not a backward compatibility issue. From > > >> >> that point of view, we could relocate plugin files. > > >> >> The reason I do not want to do is that it is an implementation issue > > >> >> that requires rewriting a lot of web2py code (particularly for the > > >> >> bytecode-compile functionality), that will make web2py slower, not > > >> >> faster, and does not seem to add any new feature (except the > > >> >> relocation itself). > > >> >> The only argument I have heard in favor of relocation is in fact that > > >> >> code will look cleaner with a new plugins location. I do not disagree > > >> >> but to users of admin things will look exactly the same (because of > > >> >> the logical location according to admin is already the one you > > >> >> suggest), to users of the shell models would be scattered and it would > > >> >> be more difficult to identify order of execution, and you will get a > > >> >> little bit of cleanness is user code at the expense of lots of dirt in > > >> >> web2py code (lots of if statements to find out what is where). > > > >> >> I will not do it. If somebody wants to write a fully working proof of > > >> >> concept implementation to demonstrate that 1) it is not slower; 2) it > > >> >> can be done without too much extra complexity in web2py source, I may > > >> >> take the patch. > > > >> >> Massimo > > > >> >> On Mar 12, 4:39 am, Alex Fanjul<alex.fan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>> Hi Massimo, > > > >> >>> I haven't said that plugins should have to depend on others, but they > > >> >>> should be able to access/play with others to make a trully plugins > > >> >>> central network, the dependencies are resoluble at highly level with > > >> >>> an > > >> >>> exposed convention API like: > > > >> >>> plugin_most_active_users.requires=['comments-1.x.x', 'auth-2.x.x'] > > >> >>> plugins['tag_cloud'].requires =['tags-1.2.x'] > > > >> >>> Its only an idea. > > > >> >>> The backward compatibility breaks with the heritance folder structure > > >> >>> (as I though you said), isn't it? > > > >> >>> *App Level: (example: plugin for commets)* > > >> >>> web2py/applications/my_app/plugins/my_plugin/modules/module*.py > > >> >>> web2py/applications/my_app/plugins/my_plugin/views/views*.py > > >> >>> web2py/applications/my_app/plugins/my_plugin/controllers/controllers*.py > > > >> >>> web2py/applications/my_app/plugins/my_plugin/static/statics*.jpg > > > >> >>> *Framework Level (example: plugin for ckeditor Editor, or last Wes > > >> >>> James > > >> >>> coda helper)* > > >> >>> web2py/plugins/my_plugin/controllers/controllers*.py > > >> >>> web2py/plugins/my_plugin/views/views*.py > > > >> >>> The way to ordering load is down-to-up I think, like kohana > > >> >>> does:http://docs.kohanaphp.com/general/modules,http://v3.kohanaphp.com/gui.... > > > >> >>> Also it's very important the hooks > > >> >>> <http://docs.kohanaphp.com/general/events> & events > > >> >>> <http://docs.kohanaphp.com/general/events> system, as both of you > > >> >>> (thadeus, Massimo) talked at the end of the chat: > > > >> >>> There is no calling for new Cache system at all...just was an > > >> >>> example... > > > >> >>> regards, > > >> >>> Alex > > > >> >>> El 12/03/2010 5:26, mdipierro escribi : > > > >> >>>> I agree with most of what you say. > > >> >>>> 99.99% of apps use a single database and so will plugins. This is > > >> >>>> because they needs auth to do anything meaningful. > > >> >>>> I do not think it is a good idea to have plugins that depend on each > > >> >>>> other. dependencies are a mess to manage. In any language and any > > >> >>>> OS I > > >> >>>> ever used. plugins with dependencies are cause for trouble. > > >> >>>> But I agree that we may build groups of plugins that cooperate for > > >> >>>> some specific tasks (like share access to certain tables and or > > >> >>>> certain web services). This will happen for plugins geared toward > > >> >>>> specific types of apps so we should not over-engineer it now. > > >> >>>> I do not think we need a 2.0 for those things that you asked. We > > >> >>>> will > > >> >>>> get there in small steps and, at this point, I do not see why any of > > >> >>>> those improvements should be inconsistent with backward > > >> >>>> compatibility. > > >> >>>> What's your wish list for cache? I never heard anybody calling for a > > >> >>>> new cache system. > > >> >>>> Massimo > > >> >>>> On Mar 11, 9:02 pm, Alex Fanjul<alex.fan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>>>> Very interesting and constructive IRC meeting, congrats to all. > > >> >>>>> After > > >> >>>>> reading all text I have some comments: > > >> >>>>> - Most of the meeting (50% at least) was concerning about *how > > >> >>>>> many and > > >> >>>>> what databases should plugins have access to*...it seems the most > > >> >>>>> headache for all, BUT, I'm pretty sure that 99% of today real WEB > > >> >>>>> applications (and very complex ones) in world uses no more than 1 > > >> >>>>> database: think of Magento's, Elgg's, Zimbra's, Active Collab's, > > >> >>>>> Twitter's, OpenBravo's, Wordpress's, Drupal's, etc. All of them > > >> >>>>> use only > > >> >>>>> ONE database (maybe clustered, spreaded, mirrored, etc. but ONE), > > >> >>>>> and > > >> >>>>> many of them has very complex plugins systems. The "problem" here, > > >> >>>>> is > > >> >>>>> that with web2py its very simple and easy to create a new > > >> >>>>> database: just > > >> >>>>> do "db=DAL(...)"... and many times we are even "confusing" (in the > > >> >>>>> right > > >> >>>>> sense) databases with tables... A game for us: Tell me more than 2 > > >> >>>>> real > > >> >>>>> web applications using more than one database. A reflection: I > > >> >>>>> would be > > >> >>>>> very afraid if after installing 20 plugins (as I have in my latest > > >> >>>>> drupal installation) I bump into 20 (or 15 or 10 or even 5) new > > >> >>>>> databases in my phpmyadmin/pgadmin. Yea: be generic and assume all > > >> >>>>> posible cases... but.... > > >> >>>>> I think Thadeusb was in the right direccion in some > > >> >>>>> comments...asumming > > >> >>>>> a worst case of ONE shared db for plugins. moreover this would > > >> >>>>> simplified things, right? > > >> >>>>> - "Turicas: should a plugin access other plugins' data?" --> > > >> >>>>> "thadeusb: > > >> >>>>> Turicas: I would think no, because a plugin should be self > > >> >>>>> contained." > > >> >>>>> In this case I disagree, the plugins -for sure- should be able to > > >> >>>>> access > > >> >>>>> to other plugins data/functions, because as centralplugins grow > > >> >>>>> up, many > > >> >>>>> of them will be based on others to not reinvent the wheel, so *we > > >> >>>>> will > > >> >>>>> need a strong convention in exposing API for functions, objects, > > >> >>>>> etc.* > > >> >>>>> (think of a "plugin_most_active_users" based on thadeus > > >> >>>>> "plugin_commets"). > > >> >>>>> - Finally I believe that a > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
