[Rt-devel] My current favorite best-practice for RT extensions ([fwd] Announce: per-queue branding for RT)

[Todd Chapman]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:44:33PM -0500, Todd Chapman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:11:05PM -0500, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:56:44PM -0500, Todd Chapman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 12:06:48PM -0500, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> > > > We recently developed this RT extension. I'm somewhat more pleased with
> > > > how the library extensions worked out here than with things we've done
> > > > in the past. Additionally, it makes it a lot easier to install multiple
> > > > extensions than overloading the _Local mechanism.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Jesse,
> > > 
> > > Looking at the code, I would summarize the new best practice as:
> > > 
> > > * Introduce HTML using Callbacks and components in $RTHOME/local/html
> > > * Introduce libs in the RT::Extension namespace in $RTHOME/local/lib
> > >   and use the module from RT_SiteConfig.pm.
> > > 
> > > Did I miss anything? 
> > > 
> > 
> > It's more about declaring extensions that are in RT::Core::Module
> > namespaces inside your extensions's lib file.
> 
> Why do that? If you remove the declaration you don't really get
> the benefit of disabling the extension because all the componentes
> (especially callbacks) are in place. Wouldn't it be better to use
> of the the pluggable modules to auto-require the install extensions?
> 
> Just wondering...
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > Why even install the libs in $RTHOME and not just the perl site
> > > lib? Just because it is of no use without RT?
> > 
> > Because then you hurt yourself when you have a second RT instance.
> > 
> > > Thanks for the great new extension!
> > > 
> > > -Todd

Jesse,

What do yo think about the plugable idea?