You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 24, 2024. It is now read-only.
It would be great to build an application and ship a set of generators with that application. An example use-case might be automatically generating json-api compatible resources.
Note that you'd want to support multiple generator "skeletons", so something like the following for an application structure might work:
Skeletons would be installed within the application code, and would not be shared from any other golang application namespace.
Optionally, Buffalo could also follow the same spec, and would use the default skeleton name. When grabbing a template, if a user overrode the template in their own app-local default skeleton, then you would respect that decision.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hum, I'm not fan of having an override like that. The problem with that approach, is that we loose control on the generation templates: the users can override the way they like. When we'll have to remove or change a variable in the generator, it'll break some setups we can't test. It also makes the debug difficult, for the same reasons.
I understand what you mean though. Using a custom Buffalo plugin can be an option for your use case.
An option for that would be to build objects that you send into the templates. Then you'd have a "contract" on what that object provides, but can change the underlying implementation at will. Doesn't really fix things though.
It would be great to build an application and ship a set of generators with that application. An example use-case might be automatically generating json-api compatible resources.
Note that you'd want to support multiple generator "skeletons", so something like the following for an application structure might work:
Then usage would be like so:
Skeletons would be installed within the application code, and would not be shared from any other golang application namespace.
Optionally, Buffalo could also follow the same spec, and would use the
default
skeleton name. When grabbing a template, if a user overrode the template in their own app-localdefault
skeleton, then you would respect that decision.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: