On 4/3/06, Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "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.
Actually, entrypoints and plugins don't really even factor in. It's all a matter of what you import. If we can turn "turbogears" into a "namespace package" (which might be tricky), then it would just happen that the turbogears.fastdata package comes from a different egg. Kevin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
