On Jun 5, 9:17 am, "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > So saying Pylons > is more advanced because it has Routes will probably sound lame by the > time Pylons 1.0 comes out.
I think this point plus the rather intricate evolutionary path outlined by Mike is a good argument against basing any self- description or claims around "nth-generation". And as all the others are constantly evolving and (I'm sure) more new proejcts will arise, describing yourself in relation to a changing field is risky and/or shaky. Also in observing the thoughts of many others on Pylons overall, and my own experiences with it I'm wondering -- though I'm reluctant to bring up this debate -- if it's more of a toolkit than a framework. Semantics yes, but this seems to better describe how it's being pitched and recommended, and coincide with James' mention of re-orging packages a bit to better enable choosing parts of the kit to use. It also sounds to me more inline with Tim's "customizable instead of flexible" thoughts. For example: SQL-Alchemy: The Database Toolkit for Python Not that Pylons would necessarily need to totally copy that in its title or whatever, but in description I think "toolkit" would probably be an improvement and cover what sounds like the direction it's heading in. Something about "toolkit" to me at least implies a collection of the best tools for those who know what they're doing (not always me). It would also be a relief to not have to see the word "framework" for a bit ;-) I realize there is not much of an "actionable" plan here, just thought responses to the last few points, perhaps to sway direction rather than direct implementation... Also FWIW my .02 is keeping "Pylons". Enough recognition has been built up that it would take a while to get there with a new name, and I can't imagine a new name so great as to make a substantial difference anyhow. I'm kind of neutral on the domain part. I find it doubtful overall that having "hq" in the url is a big hindrance -- basecamphq.com certainly hasn't ruined that project -- though admittedly very different audiences and rationale. Seems to me code, docs, more docs and polish/fit-n-finish are more important than name or domain. I also don't think a logo would really need to be very graphical -- some sort of icon could def work, but is not as vital as some think. -TG --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
