Hi,
On 12/12/12 8:21 AM, Peter Koželj wrote:
>PS: OTOH , I c Jure has proposed something akin to product
>environments while #115 is assigned to me in the issue tracker .
>
>Have you been working on #115 as part of #288 ? If so , how is the
>work started for #288 related to #115 ? I look forward to see your
>changes so as to review and compare with my current work on that
>direction .
>
>
Jure will probably comment on this better then I. AFAIK he was more focused
on Datamodel-Trac-Plugins backward compatibility for now, and I imagine (or
hope) this should be inline with product environments. I'll talk to him
today if I can help you two with multiproducts now that I am more or less
finished with whitelabeling.
The #115 and #288 are actually complementary. The #288 solves the
database layer compatibility with trac code and existing plugins, as
described in
https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/Proposals/BEP-0003#database-schema-changes,
what I understood from the #115 description is that it addresses per
product configuration based on different (per product) .ini files (in
later stages iiuc this might be stored in the database).
As for the #115, I would suggest that the work being done on that ticket
is done on the bep-0003 branch I created yesterday. If you look at the
code, there is a BloodhoundEnvironment class that replaces
trac.Environment and is a good point to implement the per product
configuration.
Cheers,
Jure
