On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: > I'd suggest instead: > > newproj/ > __init__.py > views.py > tests.py > models.py > templates/ > mytemplate.pt > static/ > <various static files> > > Such a template might be named "pyramid_diy". "pyramid_diy" would be a > template used by folks whom: > > - already know how to create packages and whom understand that it's > possible and trivial to turn a module into a package when such an > occasion is required (it needn't be done preemptively for them). > > - realize that there are not any incontravertable decisions implied > by the filesystem layout generated by a paster template. > > This would essentially just be the "pyramid_starter" template renamed. > It would be the only paster template that ships with Pyramid itself.
As Mike mentioned, naming this just pyramid would prolly be fine. > There are a few other spurious references to ``views.py`` or > ``models.py`` in other places in the Pyramid docs (the templates and > resources chapters, for example) but these can be changed to "views > module/package" or "models module/package" as necessary. I think as > long as the name of a module file representing, e.g. views (views.py) is > the same as the name of the package directory (views directory with an > __init__.py file in it), this is sufficient. Sounds good. > I don't think this is useful. A single file app would never live in a > package. There's no purpose in providing a template to generate a > single-file app. Indeed, strike that. :) Cheers, Ben -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-devel?hl=en.
