"Kevin Dangoor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > FastData is somewhat groovy, but people are likely to quickly become > disenchanted with it because it doesn't have enough customization > hooks. I'm wondering if we should put FastData in a separate package > until it's matured more. Doing that may give us a bit more > freedom-to-hack as FastData can remain "alpha" while TurboGears itself > is "stable".
With entrypoints this would be fine and seamless (except for the extra download). I believe this is a good thing, because there could be extra releases of FastData and it can be tested independently from TG's changes. > I'm also wondering about the merits of having TurboGears itself built > of multiple packages. That's a freedom that setuptools gives us that > we wouldn't have otherwise. It could open the door to others being > able to use and build on tools that we've created. (This change would > not make TurboGears appear differently to TG users... installing > TurboGears would get all of the core packages. FastData wouldn't be > one of the core packages at this point.) I like the idea. It could also be used as an example of how to write a "plugin" with TurboGears. This might incentivate people to contribute their "home made" solution and would also show a nice way to integrade "extensions" into our code. -- Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
