Hi all, Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions, maybe I'm asking the impossible, maybe I need to do the hard thinking myseld. Anyway: here's my problem.
We have a bunch of projects (about 4 big customers), some of which have significant overlap. The current approach is copy/paste, supported by tools such as mercurial for cross-project patching. This is not maintainable on the long run. I've decided to work towards an "architecture" of apps. Everything that does some small bunch of related things is an app, apps can be dropped in to projects, projects define actual sites and their particularities. Now for the fun part: one of our bigger projects which lives in 3 (hg forked) forms (2 for big customers and 1 for ourselves as an eat-your- own dogfood) has this idea of what we call a "Realm". Read "company", "site" or "user" for "realm". It basically means that (almost) all model instances are only relevant for that particular realm. (Off course, in particular cases cross realm goodies happen, which is the reason to throw the stuff on a pile in the first place) So say for this family of projects tracking of expenses is something we do. This would mean that we can A: add/delete/edit/view expenses B: I can do this, but some other people have expenses of their own to track Now, looking at some speeches/talks/blogs on the internet the recurring theme for apps is "as small as possible". So I'd say my app is "expense tracking" Not: expense tracking "within the context of 'klaas'" Now this is not entirely academic, because our second family of projects has no such concept of "realm". So I'd like to be able to make a bunch of apps "expense tracking", "basic billing", "time tracking", etc etc. and put this whole concept of realms on top of it later. Or as a separate decision at least. One of the options that was discussed on the IRC when I brought this up was "Abstract models". But I'm not really sure if that would lead anywhere. It would mean introducing a whole layer of "abstract" stuff which is not abstract at all in reality (the whole point of the exercise would be that I can use the original "expense" out of the box). Also: Django should not be Java. (and isn't as far as I'm aware) Another idea (I tried this myself but it didn't work) was simply moneky-patching an extra field in as an afterthought. It did not work 'cause the django magic is not also patched. Also: about 4 people started warning me when I suggested this on IRC. So what's the official/preferred/right way to go forward? I can hardly believe I'm the first to encounter the need for orthogonality on the model level? thanks a lot, Klaas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
