Hello everybody, After reading the thread about the sprint, I'm quiet perplex regarding the objectives and strategies of Pinax. It looks against common sense to me so i lack proper understanding. Thanks for considering my questions.
I don't understand why rigid, not reusable views functions are even committed in the Pinax source. Why are views functions accepted in Pinax when they don't accept arguments like extra_context, template_name, base_queryset .... ? (I asked on IRC and the reply was: "i didn't see the use case when i coded the view" ....) I don't understand why Pinax doesn't delegate the most tedious and repetitive tasks. How will the Pinax team maintain forks of all the apps out there? For example, do you really want to convert all templates of all apps and maintain that in the Pinax tree? Why not convince the upstream application developers to directly respect integration standards? I've forked tons of apps to be natively usable in my Pinax projects with much success, so i don't understand why apps must be copied into Pinax, it just looks like unnecessary work. Why not encourage respect of standards at the upstream application development level? There are many "copies" of apps done in djangocon to integrate and maintain, and apparently the workload is poorly distributed. Isn't one of the Pinax objectives to result in many more apps to be natively reusable? If so, what's the plan? Copy apps in the Pinax tree and maintain all the apps of the world? Why not change strategy for better workload distribution? Thanks, Regards, James -- http://jamespic.com/contact -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pinax Core Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pinax-core-dev?hl=en.
