On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 12:45 -0700, Mike Orr wrote: > 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?
Um, I am certainly not the guy to explain it, but I highly recommend Chris M's awesome docs on the bfg site. Basically the router walks an heirarchy of model objects that find their children one-by-one instead of parsing the whole url at once and then dispatching from the whole. After working through Chris's docs I'm sold that he is right that each one has use cases that are good fits. ie app/pet/1/'edit' - app object looks up and instantiates pet - pet looks up and instantiates the pet with key 1 - router passes this object to the view named 'edit' > > > 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? Well, Mochikit does what Bob wanted, and then he stopped furthering it. Which is his right of course, but means that to anyone who has to justify their platforms to less educated decision makers, it's impossible to advocate for something that is perceived as no longer active. So while I really liked Mochikit, I certainly can't convince anyone that we should be using it. > > > 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. Ah, I agree, but developers would have a hell of a time convincing clients that developing on Pylons is good for the clients business, because the developers are suddenly much harder to replace. For the client, that's pretty important. I have discovered this with my legacy TG1 apps, and it's not a fun position to be in for anyone. If Pylons continues to grow but in accordance to their vision, that won't happen. It doesn't need to be a big vision, but it can't just stop... iain --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
