On Mar 23, 1:15 am, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > The main "feature" of web2py is that appliances are data and are > treated as such. Consider a CMS app that wants to install, for > example, a plugin. A plugin contains code and needs to be installable > at runtime. The plugin may also modify other application files (such > as replace a layout or a model).
I'm afraid this approach is incompatible with production packaging. In Debian, plugins are installed via the same packaging mechanism as the applications. Take a look at trac, for example - there are several debian packages containing trac-related plugins. > I would not oppose to an external mechanism to locks/unlock *.py and > *.html files for a certain app so that they cannot be modified by the > www-data user while in production I'm glad we agree on that. > but one cannot break the internal > directory structure of the apps without crippling it. All right, we could try using the same symlink approach Mark mentioned earlier. How about this: a package containing the "examples" application is installed in /usr/share/web2py/applications/examples. Underneath there are several real directories (views, controllers, etc) populated with read-only files, but there are also a few symlinks like this: sessions -> /var/run/web2py/applications/examples/sessions databases -> /var/run/web2py/applications/examples/databases Do you think this breaks the internal structure of web2py? Regards, Dima. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web...@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.
