On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM, whit <w...@surveymonkey.com> wrote: > Marcus Cavanaugh wrote:
[Discussion about replacing @validate with Django forms.] >> I think Ben's thoughts on depreciating @validate would be the best for >> pylons in the long run. I think it'd be fruitless to try to fix it at >> this point. > > having recently run this gauntlet, what was the decision about this issue? > > deform is looking nice... formencode is still kinda an ugly wierd kid and > begging for rewriting. did anyone ever fork django-forms? Nothing will happen in 1.0. An alternative to @validate might be provided in 1.1. Ben said he'll outline a new roadmap for Pylons soon after 1.0 is released. We've generally decided to keep FormEncode because of its wide flexibility (it can validate anything, and doesn't have HTML-centric vocabulary), so whatever we choose would have to work with it. Some people have written standalone pieces of @validate which could be used inside actions or combined in a decorator, so we'd have to evaluate those. If you have any specific ideas, you can add them to the "Split up @validate" ticket. -- Mike Orr <sluggos...@gmail.com> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-devel?hl=en.
