> I'm really trying not to sound too preachy here (it's hard :-) ) but keeping
> lot's of classes inside a single file is just ... bad practice.
>
> I think the bottom line is that if quickstart had been written to create
> model and controller directories in the first place this wouldn't be an issue
> and you probably wouldn't be putting all your SQLObjects into a single source
> file. Nobody is complaining about the static directory.
If it was up to discussion I would complain about that. I don't like
it that TG creates directories for me that for the foreseeable future
will be empty or only contain one file. In the TG source there are a
few static directories that doesn't follow the quick start model and
contain both javascript and css in the same directory. I also don't
like that the static hierarchy is divided by file type. I code my page
layouts mostly using javascript widgets and therefore I want it
divided by my widget classes, like:
static/
content.css
utils.js
formwidget/
formwidget.js
formwidget.css
tabpane/
tabpane.js
tabpane.css
I think that one size does not fit em all so it's best to try and be
as simple as possible. I would prefer if most of the cruft that quick
start generated was opt in features instead. For example, how many
here have read the README.txt file that TG generates? How many have
modified it and actually written something worthwhile in it? YAGI -
you aren't gonna need it.
> This actually points out the reason to get things right at this stage and the
> reason why, even though it's a bike shed argument, it's worth beefing out.
> These issues can seem innocuous enough to begin with but can get ugly quickly
> and have a negative effect on development.
>
> Ah, for example. In my web project I have several dozen SQLObject derived
> classes modelling my data with varying degrees of functionality in methods.
> Having that all in one file would be a very bad idea for a number of very
> well know anti-pattern reasons. Having fewer SQLObjects in one file seems ok
> but is just bad practice with the consequences waiting to happen.
>
> > I am finally getting around to this, so I will offer my votes:
> >
> > +1 for a controllers package
> > -1 for a models package
> >
> > I am all about the default matching likely structure for most
> > applications. IMO, most applications will need several controllers,
> > but only one model. I don't really care for the symmetry argument,
> > as it has nothing to do with what people actually do.
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan LaCour
> > http://cleverdevil.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
>
>
>
--
mvh Björn
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears" 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
