On Dec 5, 7:48 pm, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 5, 2007 11:55 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Great to hear this is gaining some momentum. I'm not a fan of the > patch on 3591, as it goes only halfway (by adding the app() function), > stopping short of a full, elegant solution. The approach I've been > wanting to take is to makeINSTALLED_APPSaninstanceof an > AppCollection class (insert better name here), which is a collection > of App instances, each of which has a configurable label (and other > configuration). With that in place, any code that needs to iterate > over theINSTALLED_APPSwill simply do something like this:
The current patch only goes halfway in order to preserve backward compatibility. If backward compatibility *can* be sacrificed, then it might be better to force all entries in INSTALLED_APPS to be App instances. I can't see a clear need for an AppCollection class other than future -proofing - but introducing it now will definitely break backward compatibility, won't it? Perhaps we should think of what functionality would go into an AppCollection. I also think that AppCollection will conceptually overlap with AppCache - both are collections of installed apps in a Django instance. Why can't we just expose AppCache which is already there anyway? My $0.02, Vinay Sajip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
