Forum OpenACS Improvement Proposals (TIPs): Re: TIP #34 (Proposed): Application package ui separation

Collapse
18: Re: TIP #34 (Proposed): Application package ui separation (response to 16)
Posted by Tilmann Singer on 03/27/04 06:41 PM
I am against deciding now that this approach should be adopted in general for all packages in the future, without having it seen work in practice first. It sounds to me as it would add at least another complexity layer to package development, which might be desired for some frequently used very important packages that need different UIs, but maybe other packages don't need it and developing on them would suffer from the complexity.

Lee, didn't you say somewhere else that the separation of forums is finished - is that code available?

Collapse
19: Re: TIP #34 (Proposed): Application package ui separation (response to 18)
Posted by Tom Jackson on 03/27/04 07:34 PM

The only pattern I see here is that the TIP forum is being used as a general discussion forum. Was this ever discussed on either of the other two more appropriate forums? Not everyone subscribes to the TIP forum, and this discussion is very far from becoming a concrete recommendation. One TIP would be changing template::util::url_to_file. This one idea may cause changes, or at least review of every public and private package. Anyway my main point is not for or against the idea, but with the use of the TIP forum before any discussion on one of the other forums. When the TIP forum is used it divides the participants into two classes: those that can approve and those who cannot.

Collapse
20: Re: TIP #34 (Proposed): Application package ui separation (response to 19)
Posted by Joel Aufrecht on 03/28/04 01:38 PM
As per TIP rules, I am (belatedly) expiring this TIP.