Martin Kreidenweis wrote: > Hi. > >> Can we put the requirement for 'applications' back up for vote? >> >> I still see little point in them. > > Now that i've actually just found a sensible way to use them... ;) > > It's an intranet application that has "is_secure: on" for the whole app. > But i needed one module with a different design that can be accessed > anonymously, still accessing the same database though. Perfect use for a > separate "application". :)
I'd say 'one module' with different design is perfect example of when to use.. a 'module' ;) Perhaps I misunderstand though I actually default my entire app. to have is_secure, and often have modules that require me to set it to not be secure like you seem to have. It would clear up a lot of 'how do I use component X from app X in app Y' and routing issues. I'd love to see apps disappear, and have a routing system capable of working with different hostnames. I believe this issue was brought up a while ago, and keeping applications won by a minority... Regards, -- Ian P. Christian ~ http://pookey.co.uk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
