Mike Orr wrote:
> ... and available to non-TG Pylons applications. The @transactional
> decorator sounds like a good idea, possibly with a False flag if the
> default is transactional.
Agreed.
> This is a good point to ask, how will the TG template differ from
> the standard Pylons template? Will there be a base controller,
> or at what point will they diverge? Where will CherryPy-style
> dispatching be implemented? I imagine you will override PylonsApp
> and/or PylonsBaseWSGIApp in pylons.wsgiapp, no?
The TurboGears template, as of right now, is basically the same as
a Pylons template, only it includes a default route to a special
WSGIController subclass called TurboGearsController that implements
all sorts of nice things, like object-dispatch, content-negotation,
validation, and TG style @expose decoration. This controller is called
the "Root" controller and is preconfigured in the routes configuration:
map.connect('*url', controller='root', action='route')
You can find the controller here:
http://trac.turbogears.org/browser/trunk/tg/controllers.py
The route method of the controller probably needs to be split up
into some smaller, overridable chunks. The nice thing about the
approach that we have taken thus far is that you can mix TG-style
object-dispatching controllers and regular Pylons controllers if you
like.
--
Jonathan LaCour
http://cleverdevil.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
