diff options
Diffstat (limited to '.be/bugs/2f048ac5-5564-4b34-b7f9-605357267ed2/comments/c7ace551-2982-4683-bca3-b5e66056cce5/body')
| -rw-r--r-- | .be/bugs/2f048ac5-5564-4b34-b7f9-605357267ed2/comments/c7ace551-2982-4683-bca3-b5e66056cce5/body | 93 |
1 files changed, 93 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.be/bugs/2f048ac5-5564-4b34-b7f9-605357267ed2/comments/c7ace551-2982-4683-bca3-b5e66056cce5/body b/.be/bugs/2f048ac5-5564-4b34-b7f9-605357267ed2/comments/c7ace551-2982-4683-bca3-b5e66056cce5/body new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8991cfb --- /dev/null +++ b/.be/bugs/2f048ac5-5564-4b34-b7f9-605357267ed2/comments/c7ace551-2982-4683-bca3-b5e66056cce5/body @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +> 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" ;). + +Mmm, my bad here. +I normally speak about "report" as something that is not browseable, like +the output of a report generator (reportlab or whatever), but I admit that +basically also the html output I am working on is a report. + + +> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:38:56PM +0200, Gianluca Montecchi wrote: +>> +>> 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. + +I know that using libbe I am more tightly tied to the internals, but +I am trying to keep the command code and the presentation code crearly +separated to minimize this problem. I am not sure this is a real problem +anyway. + + +> 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 +> ;). + +The look is not a problem. I can always use the same html Steve is using. +I am also playing with the idea to have the template themeable some time +after I have a fully working version. + +> +>> > > 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. + +Of course. + +bye +Gianluca + + +_______________________________________________ +Be-devel mailing list +Be-devel@bugseverywhere.org +http://void.printf.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/be-devel |