OK, putting on my flame suit... I don't like it.
I distrust anything that relies on AJAX as the prime mechanism for achieving modularity of design. To me, AJAX is a useful parlor trick that works on most, but not all, browsers. It should be used as a cool "look what I can do" thing that enhances the whiz-bang interactivity of a web site -- not a structural building block that causes a website to fail if Javascript isn't present or implemented differently. I didn't like jPolite either, for the same reasons. It was cute -- too cute -- but it imposed its own limitations and dependencies on the final website. I would love to see a plug-in architecture. But I'd like to see it work without relying on Javascript or AJAX. I would even prefer to see a bunch of IFRAMEs instead of relying on Javascript. I know... I'm a Luddite. But I really believe that websites should be able to function even if the user turns Javascript off. -- Joe B. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:43 PM, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > I normally used the following terms (although this ca be changed): > > - a plugin is a part of an application that can reused across > applications. > - a component is something you can embed in a view and talks with the > app via ajax. > > A plugin can define 0 components (like a layout plugin) or 1 or more > components (like one to post comments and one to read comments and one > to edit comments). > > > > On Oct 1, 2:12 pm, Yarko Tymciurak <[email protected]> wrote: > > logically, a component should be able to be used without any changes > > to your app code, other than the interface (calls). > > > > How that is accomplished (directories or not) has more to do with > > maintenance and deployment (and upgrade) considerations. If there > > turn out to be practical show stoppers there, then I think code > > changes to core are a valid and viable consideration - its about what > > you gain / loose for the effort invested. > > > > - Yarko > > > > On 10/1/09, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Logically, I think the plugin should be organized as sub-folders (in > > > admin) > > > > > Physically, I am not convinced. The current mechanism only requires a > > > convention. If plugins where physically in a subfolder then web2py > > > would need major modifications to handle dispatching, bytecode > > > compiled applications, be able to locate models, decide order of > > > execution, etc. > > > > > This would delay the project a lot and would make web2py slower. > > > > > Massimo > > > > > On Oct 1, 12:42 pm, Jon Romero <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I think this is awesome and it was missing from web2py. > > > > >> The only thing I found strange, is that you have to place the files > > >> inside your application in multiple places. How about creating a > > >> plugin directory (see Rails "vendor/plugins") where you could just > > >> place the whole plugin structure there (like an autonomous > > >> application)? I know this might make the code more complex but it > > >> separates plugins from your application (also easier to try many > > >> plugins without 'polluting your app' and it's easier to upgrade). > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" 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/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
