* David Binger wrote [2005-11-06 17:17:10 -0500]:

>
> On Nov 6, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Michael Watkins wrote:
>
> >Has anyone considered what the Dulcinea conventions local /  local_ui
> >might look like for QP apps? Site configuration seems very clean as is;
> >will a future Dulcinea look to the publisher instance for such things as
> >date_format?
>
> Yes.  QP applications should use the publisher for site-specific
> implementation of functions that may be useful in multiple applications.  I
> think  local/local_ui-type functions should be obtained (one way or
> another) from the site's  publisher.

Calls to local.* occur some 206 times in Dulcinea's ui code and another 71
times in other modules - it could get quite busy in Publisher, although some
of that code has gone away with the new architecture (such as
local.get_connection).

Still, I wonder if a bag holder class Local might be best included in
Publisher, and a get_local() fn added to qp.pub.common.

Either way -- it matters not much to me; only a decision matters.

(as you can probably guess I am in the thick of porting stuff; now moving a
bunch of ui code over0