[Cubicweb] Bootstrap 2, Orbui 1 and CubicWeb 4

Aurélien Campéas aurelien.campeas at logilab.fr
Fri Apr 27 18:19:15 CEST 2012


Le 27/04/2012 18:13, Sylvain Thénault a écrit :
> On 27 avril 15:20, Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:59:45PM +0200, Sylvain Thénault wrote:
>>> Since the start of Celso and Carlos initiative with Orbui, I feel like this
>>> is the way to go in a near future, probably the sooner the better. The choice
>>> of Bootstrap sounds also a good choice to me. And I've not yet heard anyone
>>> here with a negative opinion or better alternative to propose, so...
>>>
>>> Regarding the best way to get there, I've still to think more about it so
>>> we won't keep legacy applications behind.
>>
>> Orbui redefines what is in cubicweb.web.views. Could we imagine to
>> turn cubicweb.web.views into a cube (lets name it baseui) and have
>> other cubes depend on other orbui or baseui ?
>
> Sounds like separating cubicweb *the lib* from cubicweb *the core
> application built on top of that lib*, ie everything that is dynamically

Also let's not forget separating the *lib* from the *server* parts (as 
there is much coupling now). I welcome wsgi + Werkzeug.

> loaded is the way to go (it has other benefits, kile no special cases for
> this as of today). Now at which granularity : what's about schema / hooks
> / entities... That could make sense to have core 'common', 'server', 'web'
> cubes that could somewhat evolve separatly from each other, and from the
> library (where changes should slow done).

Looks like we're all looking in the same direction.

>
> Also we have to consider the distribution pb : should those cubes be
> shipped with CubicWeb, and many more questions.

Probably, but these are residual questions.

>
>>> Also, the cubicweb framework would imo greatly benefit from using
>>> some recognised web libraries such as werkzeug and other stuff in
>>> the WSGI stacks by sounding more familiar to python web developpers.
>>
>> Or architecturing it as a set of components communicating via zeromq perhaps?
>
> Yes, that should *alsoù be in the plan.

I don't want that.
Distribution is a completely orthogonal feature.



More information about the Cubicweb mailing list