Mike Orr wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Noah Gift <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Although, this might eventually move to an even more common "United" >> core that many web frameworks extend off of: >> >> http://www.openplans.org/projects/pypefitters/ >> > > Well, that requires some explanation, Pypefitters is a group of WSGI > framework developers (including Pylons developers) who are pondering > the next generation of integrated tools. Recently (< 5 days ago), > Pylons, TG, and Repoze.BFG developers have been kicking around an idea > for a new framework that would take the best ideas of all three and > have plug-in personalities (Routes vs attribute dispatching, 'return > render' vs @expose, different styles of configuration, etc). The idea > is that this might be Pylons' and TG's successor (after Pylons 1 and > TG 2 are released), and that other frameworks (e.g., Werkzeug or > Django) could build on top of it if they liked. > > The two basic ideas are that (1) WSGI/Paste was a wonderful idea in > 2005 but now frameworks need more, and (2) WSGI will have to change > somehow to be Python 3 compatible (i.e., it makes str/unicode > assumptions that aren't valid under Python 3). > > So three strains are coming together: > - post-Paste tools like WebOb, WebError, render_mako, the > RoutesMiddleware abstraction, and (maybe!) repoze.who are showing > promise as future standards. > - it may be time to move to a post-WSGI standard a la the "WSGI 2" > proposals, since we'll have to change WSGI anyway. However, > politically getting a WSGI update into the Python core is a long slow > process, so maybe we should just do something under a new name. > - Pylons 3 makes a good transition point, in that we can base the new > tools on 2.6/3.0. > > So there's no code yet and the design is still up in the air, but it's > an idea we're thinking about. > > The other aspect of Pypefitters is promoting the WSGI programming > style, meaning small interoperable tools. > So encouraging users to choose Pylons/TG style frameworks, and > encouraging developers to build interoperability into their products. > > Interesting. I've tried all the python frameworks. I think there are really 2 markets - a simple to use framework and a highly optimized framework. Can they be the same ? Maybe. Frankly the way the economy is going (and will for a while), most projects (all but really big or demand sensitive) will need to be highly productive, favoring a fast and simple to market approach like Rails. For most power users, Django is awkward what with regex expressions, db, etc, Pylons is too damn confusing with all the different pieces not quite working together smoothly. Of all the python frameworks we like Werkzeug the best - nice clean views, works easily with sqlalchemy, fast, .... But frameworks with Werkzeug are missing a few key components: auth, sessions, testing.... And SQLAlchemy lacking a good migration system is a real negative to productivity. While I still prefer the python language, when it comes to getting stuff done, I think Rails still reigns supreme. Python needs something like Merb w/ sqlalchemy working like datamapper and with a good cloud option. Think productivity - fast, fast, fast to market. my 2 cents.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
