On 7/4/07, Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/4/07, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chris AtLee wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Is there any kind of effort underway to develop a suite of common web > > > applications in Pylons? I was just thinking it would be great to have > > > options for commonly used PHP apps out there, like a forum, wiki, blog > > > and photo gallery. > > > > For lower-level stuff, you might want to check out microapps: > > http://microapps.org/ > > > > Ideally those apps would be available with Paste Deploy, then whether > > they are implemented in Pylons or not isn't too big of a deal. But most > > of the ones that have been implemented aren't yet. > > Interesting site. And putting the authentication in a higher-level > middleware should just work. But there are a couple potential > problems:
If you're going to be setting up more than one application initially then you would probably be putting the authentication in some containing middleware. But if you're just setting up a single application, what happens then? I've run into this with software like phpbb - the first thing installed on the site is phpbb which does its own authentication / authorization. People use the forum for a while, and you build up a base of users in phpbb's database. Then you want to add a wiki, or a gallery, or something else that would benefit from using the same users table...now what? Do you change the wiki / gallery to use phpbb's database? Do you split out the authentication information into a new database and modify phpbb? For Pylons applications it needs to be simple to install and set up a single application. It should set up any authentication mechanisms that it needs, but those mechanisms should be flexible enough so that future applications can use it. Sorry for the rant, I just deal with this kind of stuff all the time at work that uses a big jumble of php applications each with their own idea about how to authenticate users. > 1) I saw one app written in TurboGears. I'm not too excited about > installing the entire TG suite just for one app, but OK. But what if > this app depends on a different version of TG than another microapp > I'm using? Couldn't this be handled by setuptools? How self-contained is TG? > 2) Logging. If you just want an Apache-style log, this can be done in > middleware. But if you're also logging application-specific things, > it has to be in the main app because I'm not sure if the Pylons > request and stuff is available to middleware. Either that or the main > app has to put stuff in the WSGI environ for the middleware to read on > the way out, and I'm not sure if that's an abuse of WSGI. I would just put a logging.Logger object in the WSGI environment and let the apps write to it..but that may be a worse abuse of WSGI :P Cheers, Chris --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---