| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realized that this is more flexible, as it allows the user to
comment out whatever models/sub-interfaces they don't want to use.
Adding a new model or sub-interface requires a tiny bit more work,
but I think it's worth it.
|
|
This makes it easier to add/remove models/sub-interfaces. At the
same time, it is very clear what is happening.
|
|
This follows the directory structure outlined in my previous commit
message.
|
|
The structure is preliminary. It might be a better idea to start
Sinatra in a main script, which decides what interface to use.
The question is whether non-Sinatra interfaces should be supported.
Most will likely use Sinatra, but perhaps not all. With that in
mind, how should it be decided which interface to use?
The best idea is probably to have a protocols directory, with one
script per protocol. http.rb would be the HTTP server, using Sinatra,
while ftp.rb or whatever could be run alongside it.
Alternatively, there could be the following structure:
interfaces/
- http/
- http.rb
- web/
- web.rb
- views/
- admin/
- rss/
- ftp/
- ftp.rb
That would probably be the cleanest implementation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|