On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Jorge Vargas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Krishgy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> If your questions needs to be answered quickly, Django may be right >> choice. I think, you could have known why not to use PHP when you ask >> question on Django vs Pylons :-) . >> >> I NEVER worked on Python at jobs. I wanted to create a website. I have >> chosen Pylons over Django due to its customization feature & luxuries. >> I have gathered small small frustration while working due to lack of >> documentation & community support. I am very thankful for people who >> helped me in some cases. I spend more time on Pylons. Now I don't have >> time & interest to learn another framework. I have to go with Pylons. >> >> All I would ask seniors/library developers of pylons to respond to the >> questions asked by newbies like me. Let the newcomers to feel good >> about using Pylons by heart. I REALLY don't understand what do you >> people mean by marketing Pylons. I tried to use authkit in my project, >> which is evil in my project life. I asked many questions here but got >> no reply. I do not expect such a thing from a matured community. >> > that is because > a) the author or authkit is never around > b) authkit is way over complicated > c) autukit sucks in other ways > d) all of the above.
So, we've established that AuthKit is not officially part of Pylons. AuthKit is supported by James, and I don't think any of the other Pylons developers have used AuthKit enough to be able to answer questions about it. At least that's why I personally am silent whenever an AuthKit question is raised. James was devoting all his time to his book so he wasn't able to follow the list. Now that he's finished that, I think AuthKit will be better supported. So there's one issue about AuthKit questions not being answered and another issue about other Pylons questions not being answered. My impression is that Pylons questions remain unanswered only if nobody knows the answer, or if the question is so application-specific that the answerers don't understand the question. Because the Pylons documentation is in a bit of a disarray, I think people are more willing to answer questions here than they would be in other places. One of Pylons' goals is to be the framework for newbies, but everybody realizes it's not there yet. Pylons' hybrid structure makes it more of a challenge to explain: not impossible, just more difficult. Django and TurboGears have done a better job at supporting newbies, and the Pylons developers routinely recommend those frameworks to anybody who finds Pylons' current state too difficult to understand. But I disagree that Django is 100% easier to use across the board. It depends more in the individual than the framework. Some people are really comfortable with Django's approach; others are not. Some find Pylons to be the framework they've been waiting for; others find aspects of it annoying. The best thing is to choose two or more frameworks, browse through the documentation and try one or two little programs. It should then become apparent which one is more suited to you. Also think about your long-term goals. The framework that's easiest to write "Hello, world" in is not necessarily the one you want to be using when complex issues such as internationalization, authorization, AJAX, or database migration come up. I choose software based partly on its structure, partly on how responsive the mailing list is, and partly on whether the developers have expertise in areas I'm likely to need in the future. > that said, I do think that a default auth should be added to pylons, > as it's a "pretty common feeture" but that's another discussion. It's one thing to want an auth system in the abstract. It's another to choose a particular implementation and have to support it, and then possibly change your mind if a better one comes along. Pylons has already had enough trouble with blessing things that turned out to be less than ideal in the long run (Buffet, Rails helpers, old SQLAlchemy AssignMapper, pre-webob request/response). If we had chosen an auth system at the beginning it would have been AuthKit because it was written first, and then the people who say "AuthKit sucks!" would have been howling even louder. As with SQLAlchemy, after one of the auth systems proves itself sufficiently popular, it will become semi-supported in the docs, and then *maybe* become a part of Pylons at a later date. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
