On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Dalius Dobravolskas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Uwe C. Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What is it you want to achieve with this crusade? More popularity? I guess >> all >> you'll get is annoyed core developers. > I don't care about popularity at all. If I care I have chosen the > wrong path. There are two things I care about: > 1) I want to understand. That means I must be a little bit annoying. > You know - like a little child with thousand questions. Do you know > better way? > 2) I want Pylons becoming more attractive to newcomers. That's really > important in small country like mine (3 millions people) where it is > very hard to find Python programmers. I don't speak about Pylons even > (I know 5 Pylons programmers from my country). > >> Personally I don't care at all how the auth framework really works. > There are people who care. Do you want to say that just because you > don't care I shouldn't discuss? > >> So just because you think the WSGI approach is superior to anyone else's >> approach, doesn't make it useable for many. > I completely agree. That's completely unimportant what I think (It's > more important what I do). Time will show who's right and who's > wrong...
Methinks we're getting a little lost on what we're arguing about. Are plugins or small specific middlewares a better approach to programming? That is a question this group is apparently incapable of answering definitively. My own opinion is, it depends on the specific product. Some plugin systems are good, while others are too top-heavy. Should both repoze.who and Darius's package exist and have tutorials in the Pylons Cookbook? Yes. Pylons and WSGI are about choice and freedom. If an approach might plausably be useful to a large number of programmers, it would be bad to withhold information about it. Should one of these packages or AuthKit be blessed as Pylons' official auth system and covered in the Official Docs? No, because there's insufficient consensus that one of these package is significantly superior to the others. Likewise, none of them are small enough to be an unobtrusive "least common denominator" the way WebHelpers form builders and FormEncode are. I could see one of these auth packages eventually being made the default, but not right now. AuthKit needs time to prove that its new code and documentation addresses its skeptics' concerns. repoze.who gives some people an uneasy feeling about possibly being too big and Zopish and unpylonslike. TurboGears is testing it for us in any case, and if that goes well maybe we can backport it into Pylons later. Darius's package has potential, and it may meet Pylons' standard for being the minimalist choice, but it's way too new; we'd need some people to try it out in medium-sized Pylons programs and see how well it works before we can consider making it the default. Looking forward, if repoze.who and repoze.what become wildly popular on TurboGears, and other frameworks adopt it, and people eventually accept its configuration as not that bad, it may become the standard and we'll have to adopt it. But AuthKit was written for Pylons and encompasses both sides of auth, and its code has had longer to stabilize, so those are all factors in its behavior. Python zen: In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess. Now is better than never. Although never is often better than *right* now -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
