Justin Tulloss wrote: > >> So SOPs are here to stay for now but nobody thinks they're ideal. The >> trouble is, we don't know what would be better. >> > > I understand that pylons 1.0 will be breaking backwards compatibility. > That might be a good time to look at what might be a better option. If > 98% of cases are served by threadlocals, that might be the way to go. > It's rarely wise to introduce this kind of complexity for 2% of the > use cases. > Unfortunately 90% of my use case fall inside this 2% since I have some pylons apps that dynamically instantiate other pylons apps in a controller action and dispatch to them. Given that the "complexity" is already implemented I think it's wiser to leave it there :) Mostly because I believe that a simpler threadlocal won't make debugging/testing any easier IMHO since you still have to populate them to access them outside of a request.
I honestly don't find them *that* hard to understand, and I'm not that bright either. Granted, I've fought them a lot and have implemented several libraries (one of them is open source, ToscaWidgets) that use them so I probably know more about them than the average Pylons user. I believe some good docs explaining them, even better if they are written or reviewed by whoever designed/implemented them, would be enough to help understand them better. Alberto --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
