True enough. Could probably do a plugin which would test for the environment, import as, etc. Then the work could still be shared without loading down the base.
But darnit, I was hoping all 842 members would raise their voices in unison for this idea. :) --greg-- On Mar 1, 2:15 pm, Yarko Tymciurak <yark...@gmail.com> wrote: > since YOU can package your distribution for a target environment (and are > free to include what additional libraries your application for your client > needs), it seems to me no reason to load down a base distribution with other > than what is always used, and base development support. > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Greg Fuller <gregf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I've noticed a good number, and probably a sizable percentage, of > > web2py applications are using PIL. Same with Django. I'm not sure > > that's true of NumPy or any other external app. But I do see the > > point. > > > On Mar 1, 1:54 pm, Markus Gritsch <m.grit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Greg Fuller <gregf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > IMHO, I would be a great benefit to web2py to have PIL included if it > > > > could be done with good success rate - not even 100%. Maybe it could > > > > initially be included as an "experimental" capability or something. > > > > Massimo is right with his arguments agaimst inclusion. The next would > > > come and would like to have NumPy or some other big Package included. > > > Let's keep the binary package reasonably small, and not create a > > > monster which would be hard to maintain. > > > > Markus --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
