Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Separate app-starter from examples #274

Open
JakobMiksch opened this issue Jan 11, 2022 · 4 comments
Open

Separate app-starter from examples #274

JakobMiksch opened this issue Jan 11, 2022 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@JakobMiksch
Copy link
Collaborator

JakobMiksch commented Jan 11, 2022

relates to #265 and #272

quote from @fschmenger in #265:

IMO adding further code to the app-starter folder for demonstration purpose is not a great solution. This will overload the templates on the long run, which are primarily used for bootstrapping your application. What do you think about refactoring things in the following way:

- wegue
 - app-starter
 - examples
    - projected
    - sidebar
    - custom_module
    - map_overlay
    - vector layer configuration examples ... 
    - further stuff ...

I propose to resemble the folder structure we have under app-starter for all the specific examples. app-starter itself will be stripped down to only contain a single app-conf (maybe even just the minimal one?!). All specific static resources (e.g. shops-dannstadt.geojson, 2012_Earthquakes_Mag.kml, etc.) will be moved to the respective examples they are used for. Then a user could run the examples e.g. by an app-init script in a similar fashion like we do now. Quite a bunch of work but probably more future proof :)

@fschmenger
Copy link
Collaborator

This should be on hold, until we have implemented #276. If you agree mark it as a blocker please.

@JakobMiksch
Copy link
Collaborator Author

currently we do not have the concept of "blocker" tags yet. But we can introduce that

@fschmenger
Copy link
Collaborator

My bad. I thought Github had some dependency management between issues, such as you could mark "A as blocked by B". But apparently that's not the case. "Blocker" is a little bit confusing, I would rather label this one "blocked" because #276 is the potential blocker :)

@JakobMiksch
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I changed it to 'blocked'

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants