On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Iain Duncan<[email protected]> wrote: > I am very interested in the idea of having > something that supports both Pylons style and zope-traversal style as > I'm know finding cases where zope-style-traversal is really handy.
What does this mean, for the Zope-challenged? Pylons traversal is Routes plus the PylonsApp and base controller code beyond that. Repoze traversal is based on a configuration file? Or what makes it more useful in some cases? > I don't find anything wrong with Pylons, my concern is mostly that I > don't want to see Pylons become another mochikit. Meaning what? > But if you are a small company > selling services to using a framework, it's pretty important that it > looks like the code you are selling isn't based on something that will > be forgotten about down the road. For how long? Five years, ten years, twenty years? I have a bit of a problem with the idea that the developers should support it "forever". If the developers were to lose interest in Pylons today, there would still be Pylons apps running in five years which the developers should support. In ten years there may or may not be a few apps still running, but whether it's reasonable to expect support then is debatable. Twenty years is meaningless in Internet-time because the potential for paradigm shift is so great; there may not be any "web apps" by then. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
