Seems like a good idea. Perhaps some hybrid can be used? Some frequently used / high rated apps can be included by default, where the rest can be found online. Perhaps these online versions can also be downloaded and maintained, a bit like the web2py core.
Having the scaffold apps (and their dev cycle) not too closely coupled to web2py makes sense. On May 21, 10:26 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > Massimo - what do you think about having a pulldown that is based on some > > list of "template apps" (or perhaps simply have a "template_apps" > > directory?" --- This could actually be useful without creating either too > > much noise, or imposing a limited set of starting points for development. > > This is exactly what I was proposing above, except that I suggested > the pulldown should be generated from a list of a apps hosted > somewhere as opposed to packaging all possible options with web2py. > > From the point of view of the user it would not make a difference > (assuming he/she is online). But it will make easier to add new apps > to the list. > Anyway, this add a next level of complicaiton so let's all think about > options. > > massimo --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
