Sharing default layouts among multiple domains

[Jeff Surgeson]

Question, in your opinion is the following acceptable in a Solar environment,
and also in general.

Is it sane to have multiple domains (each a Vendor of their own) in a shared
hosting environment extending from a single base vendor?

Jeff Surgeson
South Africa
_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk

[Kilbride, James P.]

Is the question only to Paul? :) Because that's what I do. I generally tend
to make each project its own 'vendor' but we do have some patterns that
become their own vendor so they can be shared across. Honestly I've never
used 'vendor' in the same way I think the rest of you do. I tend to use it
as a 'project grouping' label. Self contained project kind of thing. But I
might have a 'vendor' that is actually a common library.

James Kilbride

-----Original Message-----
From: solar-talk-bounces@...
[mailto:solar-talk-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jeff Surgeson
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:07 AM
To: solar-talk@...
Subject: [Solar-talk] Sharing default layouts among multiple domains

Question, in your opinion is the following acceptable in a Solar
environment,
and also in general.

Is it sane to have multiple domains (each a Vendor of their own) in a shared

hosting environment extending from a single base vendor?

Jeff Surgeson
South Africa
_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk


_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk

[Jeff Surgeson]

Hi James

> Is the question only to Paul? :) Because that's what I do. I generally tend

No not at all, thanks for taking the time to share.

> to make each project its own 'vendor' but we do have some patterns that
> become their own vendor so they can be shared across. Honestly I've never
> used 'vendor' in the same way I think the rest of you do. I tend to use it
> as a 'project grouping' label. Self contained project kind of thing. But I
> might have a 'vendor' that is actually a common library.
>
> James Kilbride

Yes that is very much I think what I do, I have a base "Vendor" which houses
all my default, shareable apps, layouts, views, scripts etc and then each of
my web domains also then become a "Vendor" which extend from the base "Vendor"
overriding when necessary.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: solar-talk-bounces@...
> [mailto:solar-talk-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jeff Surgeson
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:07 AM
> To: solar-talk@...
> Subject: [Solar-talk] Sharing default layouts among multiple domains
>
> Question, in your opinion is the following acceptable in a Solar
> environment,
> and also in general.
>
> Is it sane to have multiple domains (each a Vendor of their own) in a
> shared
>
> hosting environment extending from a single base vendor?
>
> Jeff Surgeson
> South Africa
> _______________________________________________
> Solar-talk mailing list
> Solar-talk@...
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk

_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk

[Paul M Jones-4]

On Sep 10, 2009, at 09:25 , Kilbride, James P. wrote:

> Is the question only to Paul? :) Because that's what I do. I  
> generally tend
> to make each project its own 'vendor' but we do have some patterns  
> that
> become their own vendor so they can be shared across. Honestly I've  
> never
> used 'vendor' in the same way I think the rest of you do. I tend to  
> use it
> as a 'project grouping' label. Self contained project kind of thing.  
> But I
> might have a 'vendor' that is actually a common library.

Project grouping is *exactly* the way to use them.  :-)  Vendors are a  
way of name spacing.  Sharing across vendors is wisdom, and is part of  
the reason I've gone to such great lengths to make sure vendor spaces  
are recognized everywhere throughout Solar, so that you can have local  
overrides from other vendors.



--

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com/




_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk

[Paul M Jones-4]

On Sep 10, 2009, at 09:54 , Jeff Surgeson wrote:

> Hi James
>
>> Is the question only to Paul? :) Because that's what I do. I  
>> generally tend
>
> No not at all, thanks for taking the time to share.
>
>> to make each project its own 'vendor' but we do have some patterns  
>> that
>> become their own vendor so they can be shared across. Honestly I've  
>> never
>> used 'vendor' in the same way I think the rest of you do. I tend to  
>> use it
>> as a 'project grouping' label. Self contained project kind of  
>> thing. But I
>> might have a 'vendor' that is actually a common library.
>>
>> James Kilbride
>
> Yes that is very much I think what I do, I have a base "Vendor"  
> which houses
> all my default, shareable apps, layouts, views, scripts etc and then  
> each of
> my web domains also then become a "Vendor" which extend from the  
> base "Vendor"
> overriding when necessary.

Jeff, I think you are doing exactly the right thing. :-)




--

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com/




_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk

[Kilbride, James P.]

So why call them vendors?

-----Original Message-----
From: solar-talk-bounces@...
[mailto:solar-talk-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Paul M Jones
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:56 AM
To: solar-talk@...
Subject: Re: [Solar-talk] Sharing default layouts among multiple domains


On Sep 10, 2009, at 09:25 , Kilbride, James P. wrote:

> Is the question only to Paul? :) Because that's what I do. I  
> generally tend
> to make each project its own 'vendor' but we do have some patterns  
> that
> become their own vendor so they can be shared across. Honestly I've  
> never
> used 'vendor' in the same way I think the rest of you do. I tend to  
> use it
> as a 'project grouping' label. Self contained project kind of thing.  
> But I
> might have a 'vendor' that is actually a common library.

Project grouping is *exactly* the way to use them.  :-)  Vendors are a  
way of name spacing.  Sharing across vendors is wisdom, and is part of  
the reason I've gone to such great lengths to make sure vendor spaces  
are recognized everywhere throughout Solar, so that you can have local  
overrides from other vendors.



--

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com/




_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk


_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk

[Paul M Jones-4]

On Sep 10, 2009, at 10:00 , Kilbride, James P. wrote:

> So why call them vendors?

Calling it "project name" wasn't inclusive enough, didn't seem to  
incorporate the idea thadt a single company could have multiple  
libraries under one name, blah blah blah.  It gives a sense that  
there's an owner behind it.  There's also some prior art from the  
Rails world where 3rd-party packages are named "vendor" and that seems  
to make sense.  There was no single word that seemed to capture  
everything it needs to convey.  In short, it needed a name, and that  
one seemed good-enough at the time.



--

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com/




_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk

[Jeff Surgeson]

> Calling it "project name" wasn't inclusive enough, didn't seem to
> incorporate the idea thadt a single company could have multiple
> libraries under one name, blah blah blah.  It gives a sense that
> there's an owner behind it.  There's also some prior art from the
> Rails world where 3rd-party packages are named "vendor" and that seems
> to make sense.  There was no single word that seemed to capture
> everything it needs to convey.  In short, it needed a name, and that
> one seemed good-enough at the time.

Paul, are you moving away, suggesting a move away from using a _App_Base as
you have always done in your apps, or is it just in the cli system stuff/
example stuff.

Is there any other reason to not to use a _Controller_Page -> _App_Base ->
_App_Whatever as we have done since Pa fell off the bus?

Jeff
_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk

[Paul M Jones-4]

On Sep 10, 2009, at 11:00 , Jeff Surgeson wrote:

>> Calling it "project name" wasn't inclusive enough, didn't seem to
>> incorporate the idea thadt a single company could have multiple
>> libraries under one name, blah blah blah.  It gives a sense that
>> there's an owner behind it.  There's also some prior art from the
>> Rails world where 3rd-party packages are named "vendor" and that  
>> seems
>> to make sense.  There was no single word that seemed to capture
>> everything it needs to convey.  In short, it needed a name, and that
>> one seemed good-enough at the time.
>
> Paul, are you moving away, suggesting a move away from using a  
> _App_Base as
> you have always done in your apps, or is it just in the cli system  
> stuff/
> example stuff.

Well, not "moving away" in the sense of having a base for extension.  
But, I think that it's good to have a place from which multiple  
App_Base classes can descend.  (This is from a year of working with it  
and trying different things.)


> Is there any other reason to not to use a _Controller_Page ->  
> _App_Base ->
> _App_Whatever as we have done since Pa fell off the bus?

No reason at all.  It's just another interception point for Vendors.  
Vendor_App_Base is still perfectly valid, whether extended from  
Vendor_Controller_Page or from OtherVendor_App_Base anything else.

Hope that all makes sense.





--

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com/




_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk

[Jeff Surgeson]

> > Paul, are you moving away, suggesting a move away from using a
> > _App_Base as
> > you have always done in your apps, or is it just in the cli system
> > stuff/
> > example stuff.
>
> Well, not "moving away" in the sense of having a base for extension.
> But, I think that it's good to have a place from which multiple
> App_Base classes can descend.  (This is from a year of working with it
> and trying different things.)
>
> > Is there any other reason to not to use a _Controller_Page ->
> > _App_Base ->
> > _App_Whatever as we have done since Pa fell off the bus?
>
> No reason at all.  It's just another interception point for Vendors.
> Vendor_App_Base is still perfectly valid, whether extended from
> Vendor_Controller_Page or from OtherVendor_App_Base anything else.
>
> Hope that all makes sense.

Just the confirmation I needed to hear, thanks :-)
_______________________________________________
Solar-talk mailing list
Solar-talk@...
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/solar-talk