Unless the parts will be a seperate project/package this seems reasonable. That way a require "part/admin" always works where a require "nitro" works. (ab) -- Arne Brasseur http://www.arnebrasseur.net http://www.zhongwiki.com http://www.bankske.org firstname.lastname@example.org
on 2007-12-07 03:58
on 2007-12-07 04:47
On Dec 6, 9:56 pm, Arne Brasseur <a...@arnebrasseur.net> wrote: > Unless the parts will be a seperate project/package this seems > reasonable. That way a require "part/admin" always works where a require > "nitro" works. Funny thing that. George wanted to use require 'part/...'. And I explained that would mean "part" basically becomes library unto itself -- then I obliged him by doing exactly that. So the question is, should "parts" be it's own package? But lets take this a step further, b/c ever since Raw cam into existence I've been a bit confused. Can Raw be used w/o Nitro? If not, what's the point of the split? There's hardly anything in the Nitro package actually. I figured the idea was that Raw represents the web- side of Nitro independent of Og, so if one really wanted they could tie Raw with another ORM system. Is that reasonable? The Nitro package, on the other hand, marries Raw and Og together -- and parts generally effect both. So yes, if nowhere else, parts belongs in nitro. However if we can, I think it would be beneficial to pursue tighter SOC, and actually makes "parts" a separate package. In this way Nitro becomes a collection of libs that come together to form the complete framework, rather then being a portion of it too. However "parts" is probably too generic a name --we would need something to go along with Raw and Og. T.
on 2007-12-07 09:23
In the begining I thought that parts should be in nitro/lib/part but Tom has convinced me to go for a separate package. I think parts is a greate name lets stick to this. -g.