well put. On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Michael Bayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > what a strange post. There are no "unicode" issues in WSGI, and the > usage of WSGI in the generic sense doesn't complicate things to any > degree - the spec is just a single function call. If there are Py3K > issues in Paste, lets first make it clear that *every* application > that deals explicitly with character encodings needs code changes to > work with Py3K. I can assure you any issues Paste has in this area > will be resolved deftly and correctly by Ian Bicking. > > The only price Pylons is paying is it assumes the developer would like > to consider how his application should be architected, instead of > those decisions being made implicitly and invisibly. This is a > cultural situation created by the dominance of PHP, a decidedly "don't > make me think / I didn't even know there was anything to think about" > platform, in the LAMP world. > > If and when other cultures, such as that of the Java and .NET/C# > communities (the theme of which would be, "we know how to code, let's > do this exactly the way we think it should be"), decide to embrace > Python more fully, projects like Pylons will establish a more > prominent userbase. The most popular web frameworks in the Java > community, such as Struts2 (nothing like Struts1) and Spring MVC, > translate conceptually to a WSGI stack very directly. > > > > On Jan 23, 8:16 am, Mario Ruggier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Mike Orr wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:05 PM, walterbyrd <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > >> And if so, why? > > > > > Everybody who uses Pylons knows that other frameworks exist and had > > > maybe tried one or two others, but has made a conscious choice that > > > they like Pylons' style better. > > > > Hi Mike, I think I understand perfectly the intention of what you are > > saying here, but the last almost off-handish reference to "style" made > > me do a double-take on what you mean... What I do not "understand" is > > that given all the noisy promises of an ideal world where all python > > web applications are built following wsgi and installed with > > setuptools, the difference we are talking about cannot be simply > > written off as a matter of "style", but more architectural and > > philosophical. Pylons has, with the best of intentions, tried to > > embrace the "new" open-architecture as fully as possible. And, it pays > > and will continue to pay a fairly high price for that choice... > > Example of past price paid, just look at the number of what-should-be- > > a-non-issue installation problems in the mail archive. Example of > > price to pay, iiuc, apparently wsgi/paste/whatever has some unicode > > issues, so pylons has to wait for those to be fixed and third-party > > released to be able to even consider 3.0? Excuse me? > > > > I fully respect the choices that pylons makes, and almost always I am > > fine with them. There is anyway always a judgement call between wide- > > open genericity and narrower-scoped simplicity, and there is no > > "right" balance. Pylons probably errs towards the first, and django > > towards the second. > > > > But simplicity is very slippery, and very easily lost. The promise of > > generic inter-operational components more often than not exacts a > > higher price than what it gives back. How have the wsgi promises of > > inter-changeable web app building blocks measured up against the > > overhead from added complexities and issues? If you take for example > > qp, one of the few non-wsgi framework around, it strikes an amazing > > balance between simplicity and genericity, and it is not hindered by > > possibly-interfering impositions of a generic api such as wsgi. It can > > be used with or without the Durus object database that accompanies it, > > but it can (probably) just as easily also be used with sqlalchemy or > > any other ORM. QP also adopts the more robust single-thread multi- > > process approach to building apps, a choice that wsgi deems (pls > > correct and excuse me if I am saying something silly here!) to not > > particularly cater for. But, deployment of a qp app cannot be > > easier... SCGI works like a charm e.g. over apache, and is even more > > charming over lighttpd that has builtin support for it. Its "framework > > api" is grokkable in minutes... plus, a small additional fact, qp + > > durus (and the associated templating utility, qpy) have been available > > for python 3.0 since --day-1--, that is since the official first > > release date of python 3.0. > > > > All I am saying is that buying into a new way of doing things is fine > > but one has to be able to look back and sans-emotions admit what has > > actually worked and what has not. And, if at the beginning it the > > motivation was philosophical, playing it down in hindsight to a matter > > of style indicates to me that it has not all worked as well as hoped. > > > > > A lot of Django fans have done the > > > same of course, but a lot of other Django fans have not really looked > > > into any other frameworks, they just came to Django from Rails or PHP > > > because they heard about it first and didn't look any further. > > > > But this is a sociological fact, true of all software where the user- > > base goes beyond a certain "mass" -- blind following of the trend. > > But, I would add it is probably a good thing... everybody must go down > > his own path, and if django attracts people from rails/php, those same > > people will, after some experience with django forge their own > > opinions and preferences... and maybe some of them will then discover, > > and prefer, pylons. Or maybe they'll just go back to php ;-!! > > > > mario > > > > > -- > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
