This is something I've been hoping for for quite a while. Most of this seems pretty well suited for setuptools, particularly upgrades and dependencies, and customizations would be as easy as extracting and modding the installed egg, but obviously that would make rolling in the latest component changes untenable. It would pretty much force the solution Mark suggested and just use mercurial to let the user untangle the mess.
Of course, model changes would still require some sort of migration, so no matter what there would have to be some sort of update script provided by the component author anyway -- perhaps this is a decent place to hook in for updates... So I guess my question is, should these components be _customized_ or _extended_? Breaking changes (like an ALTER on the model) will have to be dealt with no matter how you slice it, but in most cases (template customization) it would be trivial to override the default. I guess this would be considered monkeypatching, but it doesn't seem like it to me. On May 27, 4:53 am, Patrick Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > In starting work on ticket 1655 [1] (which is about a component > architecture for TG apps) , I've drafted up a requirements document > for discussion [2]. If you have some time and interest, I'd appreciate > any feedback or input that you might have. Thanks. > > [1]http://trac.turbogears.org/ticket/1655 > [2]http://docs.turbogears.org/2.0/RoughDocs/SiteComponentRequirements --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
