For now, all applications are tightly integrated in coin:
applications are referenced in the main urls.py file
the menu template coin/templates/menu_items.html directly lists applications
application templates assume a specific template structure in Coin (base template named base.html, blocks named content and js)
no application ships its own CSS, the CSS for all applications is in a single CSS file
This makes it difficult to use only a subset of available applications.
A solution could be to make each application independent (maybe even in separate git repositories), and have several project (coin_illyse, coin_faimaison, ...) that define the settings (notably INSTALLED_APPS), the urls, the global CSS, and the global templates. A new user of coin would just copy one of the existing projects and modify it to suit its needs.
For now, all applications are tightly integrated in coin:
- applications are referenced in the main `urls.py` file
- the menu template `coin/templates/menu_items.html` directly lists applications
- application templates assume a specific template structure in Coin (base template named `base.html`, blocks named `content` and `js`)
- no application ships its own CSS, the CSS for all applications is in a single CSS file
This makes it difficult to use only a subset of available applications.
A solution could be to make each application independent (maybe even in separate git repositories), and have several project (`coin_illyse`, `coin_faimaison`, ...) that define the settings (notably `INSTALLED_APPS`), the urls, the global CSS, and the global templates. A new user of coin would just copy one of the existing projects and modify it to suit its needs.
Related: 13ebafbc8c708e7dff084b4eef3e6c9c96d3ecdc, #52, #22
Now that #55 and #57 are merged in master, most of the work is done.
Maybe we should discuss app organisation? From #55:
that implicit organization with optional apps in the root dir seems a bit messy to me
What about a git repository for each optional application? It seems too heavyweight to me, but well.
Now that #55 and #57 are merged in master, most of the work is done.
Maybe we should discuss app organisation? From #55:
> that implicit organization with optional apps in the root dir seems a bit messy to me
What about a git repository for each optional application? It seems too heavyweight to me, but well.
What about a git repository for each optional application? It seems too heavyweight to me, but well.
We are not a lot of developers on coin, so that seems overkill to me at the moment. + As long as we do not consider and maintain a stable API, dividing into separate packages seems a risky thing to me.
What about (for now) storing the optional apps in a folder named decently, like "contrib", "contrib_apps", whatever…
> What about a git repository for each optional application? It seems too heavyweight to me, but well.
We are not a lot of developers on coin, so that seems overkill to me at the moment. + As long as we do not consider and maintain a stable API, dividing into separate packages seems a risky thing to me.
What about (for now) storing the optional apps in a folder named decently, like "contrib", "contrib_apps", whatever…
For now, all applications are tightly integrated in coin:
urls.pyfilecoin/templates/menu_items.htmldirectly lists applicationsbase.html, blocks namedcontentandjs)This makes it difficult to use only a subset of available applications.
A solution could be to make each application independent (maybe even in separate git repositories), and have several project (
coin_illyse,coin_faimaison, ...) that define the settings (notablyINSTALLED_APPS), the urls, the global CSS, and the global templates. A new user of coin would just copy one of the existing projects and modify it to suit its needs.Related:
13ebafbc8c, #52, #22Now that #55 and #57 are merged in master, most of the work is done.
Maybe we should discuss app organisation? From #55:
What about a git repository for each optional application? It seems too heavyweight to me, but well.
We are not a lot of developers on coin, so that seems overkill to me at the moment. + As long as we do not consider and maintain a stable API, dividing into separate packages seems a risky thing to me.
What about (for now) storing the optional apps in a folder named decently, like "contrib", "contrib_apps", whatever…
closing for now, the minimal required feature is there already, we could think about repo separation in another ticket or re-opening here.