On 6/5/07, ToddG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I thought a bit about this, but it really is a framework. A toolkit/library is something you call. A framework is something that calls you. Given that it's the outer part of web applications that is boring (the dispatcher, HTTP headers, cookie syntax) and the inner part that is interesting (each app's unique controllers), this makes sense. Quixote is more like a toolkit: minimalistic, just the necessary parts. That served me well for a couple years because the parts are well chosen. But eventually the lack of a supported Javascript library, auth kit, i18n infrastructure, ORM, etc bothered me and drew me toward the megaframeworks. I got tired of reinventing the wheel, and not as well as a team of experts in their specific field would. To me the word "toolkit", at least as it has been used, has this sense of incompleteness. -- Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
