diff options
Diffstat (limited to '.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/2f048ac5-5564-4b34-b7f9-605357267ed2/comments/83202b83-eea8-452f-8239-d468940bddba/body')
| -rw-r--r-- | .be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/2f048ac5-5564-4b34-b7f9-605357267ed2/comments/83202b83-eea8-452f-8239-d468940bddba/body | 123 |
1 files changed, 123 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/2f048ac5-5564-4b34-b7f9-605357267ed2/comments/83202b83-eea8-452f-8239-d468940bddba/body b/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/2f048ac5-5564-4b34-b7f9-605357267ed2/comments/83202b83-eea8-452f-8239-d468940bddba/body new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9bf3851 --- /dev/null +++ b/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/2f048ac5-5564-4b34-b7f9-605357267ed2/comments/83202b83-eea8-452f-8239-d468940bddba/body @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:50:17PM +0200, Gianluca Montecchi wrote: +> +> Hello to everyone +> +> As i said in a previous mail, I am working on a "html" command for be. +> The goal is to be able to do something like "be html /web/page" to have in the +> /web/page directory some static html pages that basically are the dump of the +> be repository, much like ditz have +> This will enable a simple and fast publish of the bus list and details on the +> web, at least in read only mode. +> +> So I'd like to ask some question: +> 1) is it ok to develop this command ? I know that this is not a fully featured +> web interface, but I am sure that it can be usefull. +> +> I am open to suggestion about it of course. +> +> 2) I see that every command is implemented with a python file in the becommand +> dir. For a better code, I'd like to split the command implementation into two +> files: a file that contain the actual code and a second file that have the html +> related part, any problem with this ? I don't like to have the html part and +> the code part in one big and unreadable file. +> +> I'd like to hear other opinion about this. +> +> Thanks for now +> bye +> Gianluca +> +> +> _______________________________________________ +> Be-devel mailing list +> Be-devel@bugseverywhere.org +> http://void.printf.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/be-devel + +On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:18:33PM +0200, Gianluca Montecchi wrote: +> This sound like an interesting idea, but what i'd like to do is not, strictly +> speaking, a report. It is a full tree of html pages that are browseable, both +> on line and offline + +I'm not sure what distinction you're making about "report". You're +just producing a static snapshot of the current database status, +right? The number of pages and completeness of coverage are nice, but +it's still a static entity generated from a particular snapshot, which +is what I mean by "report" ;). + +> > > 2) I see that every command is implemented with a python file in the +> > > becommand dir. For a better code, I'd like to split the command +> > > implementation into two files: a file that contain the actual code and +> > > a second file that have the html related part, any problem with this ? +> > +> > This sounds quite sensible to me. The existence of a command implies a +> > module of the same name in ‘becommand’, but there's no necessary +> > implication that that module can't import modules from elsewhere to do +> > its work. +> +> The "elsewhere" for now is the same directory, just another module +> + +On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:38:56PM +0200, Gianluca Montecchi wrote: +> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:50:17PM +0200, Gianluca Montecchi wrote: +> > > The goal is to be able to do something like "be html /web/page" to have +> > > in the /web/page directory some static html pages that basically are the +> > > dump of the be repository, much like ditz have +> > +> > I think truly interactive frontends like Steve's working on need to be +> > build on top of libbe directly, since they'll need to make lots of +> > small changes to the database, and it's to slow to be reloading the +> > database for every change. Static dumps like my mbox or Gianluca's +> > html could just parse the xml output of `be list' and other be +> > commands. +> +> Ok, but if I want to have an html dump that is browseable, I need to parse the +> xml. Am I correct ? +> If yes, should not be easiear to use directly the libbe ? + +Using libbe directly is easier, but also more tightly tied to the be +internals which could weigh down future refactoring. Partly I'm +afraid of our 2.5 different html-output mechanisms. Either their +should be a single Right Way that tries to satisfy everyone, or a +smorgasbord of loosely coupled translators, so it's not so painful to +kill them if/when they go out of style :p. + +On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:46:54PM +0200, Gianluca Montecchi wrote: +> On Saturday 04 July 2009 02:31:26 Chris Ball wrote: +> > It might be a good idea for "be html" to use the CherryPy web interface +> > that Steve is working on. The command could start up the CherryPy app +> > and scrape all of the available pages to get a stand-alone dump; this +> > would avoid having to keep two (okay, more than two at this point) +> > separate sets of HTML templates in the source tree. What do you think? +> +> It can be do, but this implies that CherryPy must be installed and configured, +> a thing that I don't want to impose. My idea is to offer a simpler way to have +> some html pages, where you just need to have BE installed. + +I agree that not needing CherryPy for a static html dump is good. +Also, read-only templates will look different from the CherryPy +interactive templates. +1 for another quasi-redundant template set +;). + +> > > 2) I see that every command is implemented with a python file in +> > > the becommand dir. For a better code, I'd like to split the +> > > command implementation into two files: a file that contain the +> > > actual code and a second file that have the html related part, +> > > any problem with this ? I don't like to have the html part and +> > > the code part in one big and unreadable file. +> > +> > I agree that becommands/*.py commands should not contain any HTML +> > layout code. Putting it somewhere else instead sounds fine. +> +> I am in doubt with the "somewhere else", since for now I put the html template +> into a separate file in the same directory. Suggestion ? + +I think that only code intended only for command line use only should +go into becommands, but really, just dump it anywhere and we can shift +it around later :p. + +-- +This email may be signed or encrypted with GPG (http://www.gnupg.org). +The GPG signature (if present) will be attached as 'signature.asc'. +For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy + +My public key is at http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~wking/pubkey.txt |