evaluate bartTC's django-attachments

[akaihola]

A bit of history:

• Nov 2008: this app was copied from pinax-cohousing to django-chicago
• Feb 2009: it was extracted from django-chicago to github/akaihola
• May 2009: bartTC created another django-attachments app on GitHub

The differences between this app and bartTC's django-attachments should be reviewed and if bartTC's app looks superior, this app should be assimilated.

A possible migration strategy would be:

• add API compatibility with bartTC's django-attachments
• discard our underlying implementation in favor of bartTC's
• add backwards compatibility with our old API
• request backwards compatibility to be included in bartTC's app.

[akaihola]

Wes Winham has put considerable effort into the django-chicago based attachments app (forked from my repo): http://github.com/winhamwr/django-attachments/

[akaihola]

The original django-chicago attachment app has been declared "dead", and bartTC's app is recommended instead by the Pinax people: http://groups.google.com/group/pinax-users/browse_thread/thread/56e49553d5482e20

[winhamwr]

They've definitely diverged quite a bit at this point. I started working on my fork about the same time that the other django-attachments popped up. I needed attachments with a user-friendly name field that I could use via AJAX and a fairly custom method of determining where on disc the attachments will live. I also needed a manager for getting all of the attachments based on a queryset of objects. I also needed to use very custom permissions so I figured I'd be wrapping the django-attachments views anyway and the attachment.creator bit doesn't make much sense for me.

For bartTC's branch, it looks like their templates and templatetags are better, the documentation is better and the usage is easier because they keep the permissions simple and an attachment is just a file, and not a descriptor or slug or anything.

In short, I think it would be quite a bit of work to add the functionality from my branch to theirs, and it wouldn't be really plausible with the way bartTC's has permissions built-in (as far as re-using the views at least). My branch isn't even backwards compatible with yours though, so I'm not sure what the best course of action is. It might be the case that I'm the only person in the world that needs the new features in my branch, though.