On 17 abr, 00:31, Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alberto Valverde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sounds reasonable, mind anyone opening a "patched" ticket at the
> > Trac? :)
>
> I've been thinking... What about making tg.request (cherrypy.request)
> available? There we'd have all information from the request and we
> could modify it there... Of course, a complement of turbogears.request
> would also be nice.
>
> AND, since we're going towards WSGI, we can make that an entry_point or
> a configuration parameter... By default this would be cherrypy.request,
> but it could be any request object.
>
> What do you think?
Fine with me too, however, making it configurable via an entry point
seems an overkill to me and overlaps with what extensions provide.
Keep in mind extensions are also loaded via entrypoints and these have
the ability of adding new variables to the template namesace.
So, to sum up, I'm +1 on putting request on tg.request but -1 on
creating a new entry-point to configure which object is bound here.
Alberto
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
