Geoff, Well stated! From my perspective, the only reason I see to move something from custom to core is if the nature of the code will be intrinsic to the application as a whole. In the case of doing ecom where the number of routines to process orders is "core" to the application, I felt that saving the type to the core (BTW this code set is on another server solely for building ecom) rather than custom would be a good choice. Since the code is only a type, any upgrade tot he core code will have no affect.
If you feel that these types (around 25) should be strictly custom, I value your opinion and perspective. -- Regards, Michael J. Sammut ____________________________________________________________________ F O U R E Y E S P R O D U C T I O N S think | plan | create :: web site design & development :: NYC E. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | T: 718.254.9557 ext. 101 | F: 718.254.0399 W. http://www.foureyes.com "Geoff Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Michael @Four Eyes wrote: > > I'm trying to keep out of the core and see how flexible this is.... > > although with custom sales reports, marketing reports and all the rest I > > think that's going to be quite hard. I'd prefer to utilise the FarCry > > and FourQ libraries in a separate app to create some of the custom > > features, so we can keep with the standard farcry_core. Do you think > > it's worth the bother? > > > > *MJS:* Our approach for ecom is that there is so much to do to that is > > intrinsic to the app that we went right to the core. Custom types are > > powerful and in some cases we have moved custom types into the core. We > > are not messing with the core files in anyway but rather deploying new > > types in the core. This will allow us to keep up to date on core builds > > but have a slew of types for ecom only! > > We've tried to design the code bases so that folks can deploy custom > types, rules and CFCs within their *farCry_project* directory of choice. > There should be *no* need to modify farcry_core files to deploy a > custom type for example. > > Obviously people out there *are* modifying farcry_core. It would be > good for folks to post reasons *why* they feel they need to modify core > and *where* the farcry_project/farcry_core model falls short. Better > for us to try and rearchitect the code than have farcry_core modified > outside of "official" releases of farcry_core builds. > > From our experience, modifications to farcry_core on a per deployment > basis *absolutely* leads to confusion and maintenance difficulties. > > -- geoff > http://www.daemon.com.au/ > > > --- You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
