Andr�, is it not possible to devise install options, so that variations can be applied by the target developer? In this instance, builders would be a
That is of course possible, but would be a bit cumbersome when you try to adapt cloud context security (ccs) to use your own builders. In the case of ccs it would be easier to adapt the builders to reflect your own needs, like by introducing more fields in the builder mmbaseuser.
Or do you mean that in the ccs application all references to builders and fields in builders need to be generic? And that you map these builders and fields with some configuration file?
I, for example asked the designers of the chat application JIRC to make the user builder generic and the mapping to the right builder and the two fields JIRC uses from it, is described in a configuration file. But JIRC also uses the builders server and channel and i believe that these are really needed by the application (it's a chat so it needs a server and channels :-) and there is no need to make these generic or configurable, they are 'part' of the application.
suitable way of introducing options. Downloading extensions to mmbase seperately is prohibitive in the mind of a new developer. It also means that "mmbase" is the sum of all of it's parts, not just a core with added options. It also means that testing mmbase would include all of the applications installed as well.
Not necessarily so.
---Andr� -- Andr� van Toly http://www.toly.nl mobile +31(0)627233562 ------------------------------------------------------------------>><<-- _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
