This was discussed long ago... Here is the problem. Plugins are a packaging mechanism.
Now an app has models/views/controllers/etc and a plugin can be "any subset of an app". If you relegate plugins into a subfolder called plugins than they cannot be "any subset of an app". For example they cannot be a layout or a collection of static files etc. Nothing prevents us from creating a folder called plugins(*), move stuff under there and add logic so that when use calls an an action web2py looks in the usual place and also under the plugins folder but: these other types of plugins (once called y-plugins) would be a subset of the current plugin system; the extra logic would considerably slow down web2py because because of the increased file system and would considerably increase the complexity of the underlying code. Other than aesthetic considerations, I do not seen any technical advantage of y-plugins over current plugins. I only see disadvantages. Mind that you can already create y-plugins for modules (which may contain table definition), views (by using response.view to handle them) and static files (by using a custom action to serve them) and they would work with current plugin packaging mechanism. In the past I have challenged users to create a working proof of concept to show that they are worth it. Nobody ever did. Massimo On May 2, 8:53 am, Ross Peoples <ross.peop...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is pretty awesome and will be very helpful with large, > enterprise applications, as well as applications that do many things that > are not all related. I wonder if we could take this a bit further though... > > Plugins, for example, extract themselves to the various locations (models, > controllers, modules, views, static, etc). What if we allowed plugins to be > better organized?. If I have a plugin called plugin_test, I would have a > 'test' folder under the plugins folder, and in that folder I would have > models, controllers, and views folders. This way, plugins can be a bit more > 'pluggable' and self-contained instead of them merging with everything else. > > Would this be a good idea?
