On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:03:38AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Forwarding to fedora-infrastructure-list soit canget more exposure and
> discussion.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Tosca widgets, only half the battle
> Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 12:27:36 -0400
> From: John (J5) Palmieri <johnp(a)redhat.com>
> To: Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com>
> CC: tcallawa(a)redhat.com, lmacken(a)redhat.com, mmcgrath(a)redhat.com
>
> After hacking away at MyFedora and producing a lot of ugly code in the
> process I finally sat down the last two weeks to organize everything
> into a framework make it much more extensible and have patterns for
> people to easily create content. Most of the technologies are
> solidifying into my head and I have been working on hashing out an API
> design behind the user interaction design I had started with. The issue
> I am running into now is the fact that Turbo Gears and related
> technology come from a monolithic design and adhere too stringently to
> the Model/View/Controller design pattern. This is really an issue when
> your models, views and controllers can come from different applications
> or even different servers. MyFedora is of course a mashup of different
> tools and does not fit the, I'm grabbing data from a single database and
> displaying it via a self contained template, mold. What I need is a
> complete plugin system where a person can write their own self contained
> controllers, templates and static files which then drop in and are
> loaded on the fly, while integrating with the global project.
>
Do we want the myfedora app to be coded in such a way that it works with
lots of technologies? or do we want to define a standard that the
technologies can implement to make it work with myfedora?
I'd like to see us re-use and be compatible with as many existing
technologies and standards as possible. I don't necessarily see any
value in re-inventing our own. That is, unless we have a sound reason
to?
luke