Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
Do we really want modules scattered?
Original comment by thomasse...@gmail.com
on 9 Jun 2009 at 7:24
I don't know. In my mind I see like 20 building generators being possible.
The idea
of them all floating around a folder with all the street generators and block
generators and such seems messy. But I'm open. We can always change the
structure
later, especially if we make them so they load relative to the loader file.
Also, Jim is possibly setting up his mercurial differently, which would require
the
plugins to load from a relative location to the loader file and not a fixed
location.
But should we just plan on having all modules live together inside the single
modules
folder? I'm fine with that. I'm sure it won't get overcrowded for quite a
while.
I think we need some sort of method for the module to let the core know what
type of
module it is so the core knows how to load it. Global variable? Or can we use
a
class variable across multiple files?
Original comment by fullmer....@gmail.com
on 9 Jun 2009 at 7:36
If you check out my SG module you'll see that I have some ID and version info
that's
available for the module so it can be identified.
As things are now, the core loads all .rb files in the /modules/ folder. You
could
keep only a loader for that folder, and keep the various building modules in a
Building Module folder.
Original comment by thomasse...@gmail.com
on 10 Jun 2009 at 10:42
There's also the issue with webdialogs.
At the moment I put some core JS and CSS files in the /citygen/modules/ folder.
In
order for the SG webdialog it needs to be able to locate these files - and that
requires a predictable relative path...
Original comment by thomasse...@gmail.com
on 10 Jun 2009 at 11:22
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
fullmer....@gmail.com
on 5 Jun 2009 at 8:57