I'm not sure, honestly. We do expose a lot, but is adding more a good idea? Unless we lay claim to it and say "tg.varname is how you do x. btw, for now, tg.varname is a direct line to this var over in Pylons, but that can change later".
On the surface, the idea sounds good, I'm just not sure it's the way for us to go forward. Thoughts from anybody else? On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Alessandro Molina < [email protected]> wrote: > Most of the pylons things used by TurboGears are accessible from the tg.* > namespace directly. > I think that this is indeed good as it keep an high level of abstraction > from pylons itself and gives use more freedom for future evolutions. > > I was thinking to take a look around in the documentation, look of each > pylons.something function used inside the doc and migrate it to > tg.something. > Also if in the process I discover something that isn't available inside the > tg namespace I woud expose it inside tg itself. > > What is others opinion about this? Any one against doing this? > > Alessandro > > -- > 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. > -- Michael J. Pedersen My IM IDs: Jabber/[email protected], AIM/pedermj022171 Yahoo/pedermj2002, MSN/[email protected] My LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaeljpedersen Twitter: pedersentg -- 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.
