I don't know if this would be good or bad. We would have to be very careful to make sure that dev mode and production mode really behaved the same.
The potential situation being, adding too much code to dev mode down the line could eventually make it behave differently than production mode. I think this should only be implemented after extensive unit-tests are in place to catch this sort of error before it becomes a stable release. -tim ceej wrote: > I think this sounds like a great idea. +1 > > On Mar 11, 2:10 pm, blackthorne <francisco....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> hi >> >> As my experience with web2py grows I find an increased need to make it >> work in 2 main environments/behaviors. >> >> The first mode would be "development" and it should run with smaller >> buffers, extra debug features/output, auto-refresh for files like >> routes.py so that you can edit routes on-the-fly, no caching >> mechanisms that can trick the programmers and it could even be a >> testing mode for new web2py features. >> Then there would be "production" mode, meant to be simple, stable and >> as fast as possible. >> >> Thinking about it, doesn't make sense that such different usages run >> the same way. >> >> This idea doesn't break the convention over configuration philosophy >> used in web2py. >> >> Thanks >> > > > -- Timothy Farrell <tfarr...@swgen.com> Computer Guy Statewide General Insurance Agency (www.swgen.com) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
