GNIP 7 - GeoNode + Pinax compatibility

[David Winslow]

See proposal on the wiki: https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/wiki/GNIP-7---GeoNode-%2B-Pinax-compatibility

What are the standards required for Pinax compatibility?  Is it just what's here? http://pinax.readthedocs.org/en/latest/development.html#coding-style

The idea of having multiple 'starter projects' sounds like it will be moving GeoNode further from a deployable application and more toward a web framework/basis for custom development.  I expect that this will have serious ramifications for deployment and administration, especially for current users of the debian packages.  Could you add a bit to the proposal about how the installer would be affected by this change?

--

David Winslow

OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/

[Ariel Nunez]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM, David Winslow <dwin...@opengeo.org> wrote:
> See proposal on the wiki:
> https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/wiki/GNIP-7---GeoNode-%2B-Pinax-compatibility
>
> What are the standards required for Pinax compatibility?  Is it just what's
> here? http://pinax.readthedocs.org/en/latest/development.html#coding-style

It will imply different names for the templates ( 'homepage.html' vs
'index.html') and blocks inside the templates (like 'main' vs
'content'). See the commit creating the starter project here [1].

> The idea of having multiple 'starter projects' sounds like it will be moving
> GeoNode further from a deployable application and more toward a web
> framework/basis for custom development.  I expect that this will have
> serious ramifications for deployment and administration, especially for
> current users of the debian packages.  Could you add a bit to the proposal
> about how the installer would be affected by this change?

Much like Pinax has a 'social project' starter that lets you end up
with a default social network site website, GeoNode would have a
default geonode_project that is included by default in the debian
installer. The starter project would only be used by people creating
derivations of GeoNode, like Risk in a Box or WorldMap. Most users
would continue to use the recommended /etc/geonode/templates and
/etc/geonode/media based changes.

This seems to touch on the separation of the 'maps' app from the
'geonode' project but the proposal does not mention it. Could we get
one of the developers of the work to comment more on the GNIP on 'how'
it will / is implemented? For example modules that have to be moved,
approach used to handle the navigation bar items, support for the
different pinax default themes, potential conflicts with ExtJS, what
is going to happen with the existing site.css?.

I am very much in favor of this GNIP (and have been since I joined the
GeoNode team), but it needs a lot more details on how the issues above
will be handled before it can be voted on.

-Ariel.

[Jeffrey Johnson]

Ariel, did you forget to include [1] it's something I'd like to look
at carefully.

[David Winslow]

If we are going to require some standards of GeoNode developers (ie, name your templates and blocks like so) then I think we should have a better codification of those standards than an exemplary changeset in Git.

--

David Winslow

OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/

[Ariel Nunez]

I agree, the GeoNode docs should be documented with the name of the
blocks, that would be useful to developers but even more for end users
doing customization and creating new pages.