On 2/28/07, Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 27, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Paul McNett wrote: > > > I think from prior conversations that Ed agrees (let me know if I have > > that right, Ed) but what do others think? > > I don't agree that the demo stuff should be in the framework. I > strongly prefer the wxPython model, with a single demo application > that those who want to explore Dabo and its code have a single place > to go for this. The current demo apps were just random thoughts that > happened to have been included because of timing, user requests, > etc., rather than being part of a well-thought-out approach to > creating a tool that both demonstrates what Dabo can do, and gives > interested developers a way to see how it was done. The DaboDemo > project is what we should be focusing on here; I showed it to several > people at PyCon, and they all loved the idea. > > As far as the IDE stuff goes, I'm not convinced it's a good idea > yet. The framework is so much more mature than the IDE stuff that > there is a distinct disconnect; I don't know that it's good to > include them as parts of the 'same thing' yet. OTOH, anything that > gets rid of the use of the term 'daboide' is a huge plus. > > > On Feb 27, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Uwe Grauer wrote: > > > At least daboide is direct dependent on dabo so i always was wondering > > about why they were put into different repositories. > > The IDE is an application written in Dabo. There are two things > involved here: the framework, which needs to be in site-packages, and > the IDE application that a user could install anywhere. > > In the future when the IDE is more mature, I envision the following: > someone wants to try Dabo, so they do something (in Ubuntu terms) > like: apt-get install python-dabo. The package manager installs the > application in the /usr/local/bin directory, notes the dependencies > on Python 2.x, wxPython 2.x.x, MySQLdb 1.x, etc., and installs them > in to the appropriate places. > > Hmmm... now that I've put my thoughts on paper, I think that > combining these together is a bad idea. The framework is a site- > packages-level project, and the other two are applications that, > while both written in Dabo, do completely different things. So I'd > say that they should remain separate, even if it means that we're > stuck with that infernal 'daboide' name. >
How about Dabo Intergated Environment for Development (DIED) or Daba Augmented Development Environment (DADE)? > > -- Ed Leafe > -- http://leafe.com > -- http://dabodev.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Post Messages to: [email protected] > Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev
