On 10/20/05, Robert Wittams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should I add this to the wiki page?
Feel free. But, please don't use @decorator syntax, it's not 2.3-safe.
/s
On 10/20/05, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * All app templates assume there's a "base_generic" template and {%
> extend %} it.
> * All app templates assume the is in {% title %}.
> * All app templates assume there's a {% block extrahead %} within the
> . This is a hook for putting
On 10/20/05, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had this same question: What's a mnemosyne? We should change it to "myapp".
Mnemosyne is the greek goddess of memory, I pulled it out of
the hat, because I think myapp is so boring and impersonal.
But, feel free to change it.
/s
On 10/20/05, kmh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seeing it in writing got me wondering though if the whole idea of
> application templates "extending" the base site is wrong-headed.
> Because the application knows nothing about the site it is to be
> embedded in, the application writer is second-gues
On 10/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> great start. just two comments. why use mnemosyne as the example? why
> not something more generic like "myapp" ?
I had this same question: What's a mnemosyne? We should change it to "myapp".
Adrian
--
Adrian Holovaty
holovaty.com | dj
kmh wrote:
>>On 10/20/05, kmh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Shouldn't we encourage a model where site templates are able to
>>>explicitly "include" application templates, rather than the other way
>>>around?
>
>
>>On 10/20/05, Sune Kirkeby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>That's not how applicati
On 10/20/05, kmh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 10/20/05, kmh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Shouldn't we encourage a model where site templates are able to
> >> explicitly "include" application templates, rather than the other way
> >> around?
>
> >On 10/20/05, Sune Kirkeby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On 10/20/05, kmh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Shouldn't we encourage a model where site templates are able to
>> explicitly "include" application templates, rather than the other way
>> around?
>On 10/20/05, Sune Kirkeby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's not how applications and templates work
On 10/20/05, kmh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shouldn't we encourage a model where site templates are able to
> explicitly "include" application templates, rather than the other way
> around?
That's not how applications and templates work. You can't just
include a template from another applicatio
Hey,
great start. just two comments. why use mnemosyne as the example? why
not something more generic like "myapp" ?
for the media directory, mnemosyne/media/ should be sufficient.
Hi Sune,
Thanks for getting this thread going. Your outline is pretty close to
the way I've been doing things too.
Seeing it in writing got me wondering though if the whole idea of
application templates "extending" the base site is wrong-headed.
Because the application knows nothing about the s
Hullo.
Here is a rough draft of "Do's and Dont's for Application Writers":
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/DosAndDontsForApplicationWriters
I'd be much interested in comments, suggestions and
anything people disagree with, but can we keep feedback
on the list? Wiki
12 matches
Mail list logo
