On 10/8/07, Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Something to think about though is providing a way to add > callbacks to this hook that is independant of settings.py.
Having to modify settings.py doesn't both me here. It's done for middleware and context processors, so it seems to fit with the rest of the project. Additionally, it allows one to pick from a number of functions that may be provided in a library-type application. On 10/8/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been thinking this morning, between actual work tasks, > about an app-cache-populated signal. I'm +0 on this approach. >From my perspective, we're trying to provide hooks into two application states... *before* and *after* the Django runtime environment is setup. An app-cache-populated signal would just be a proxy for the latter. If we ever add any other dependencies to what it means for the environment to be ready we'd need to create one more signal. Still, I'd rather see this than nothing at all... I'll be interested to revisit it when Adrian's INSTALLED_APPS replacement plan lands. - Ben --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
