On 8/9/12 7:17 PM, Gary Martin wrote: > On 09/08/12 16:36, Greg Stein wrote: >> On Aug 9, 2012 11:33 AM, "Dave Brondsema" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> That sounds great. AFAIK an NFS mount will be fine for Allura to read >> from. >>> By the way, I've subscribed to the bloodhound-dev list also. It seems >>> that allura and bloodhound have a lot in common: python code/project >>> management tools both going through incubation :) >> Hehe... actually, I've considered raising the idea of plugging BH into >> Allura. Guess this is a good time to do just that :-) >> >> Cheers, >> -g >> > > Certainly a very interesting idea. Would this be considered consistent > with Allura's plans though? >
A key part of Allura's architecture is the pluggability of "tools". A standalone BloodHound tool for Allura could be developed without affecting the Allura platform at all. That said, a lot of the benefit of Allura is in using the core models which would give you unified searching, permissions, cross-linking between tools, etc. So you couldn't reap those benefits without a lot of customization to BloodHound. -- Dave Brondsema : [email protected] http://www.brondsema.net : personal http://www.splike.com : programming <><
