On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:01:37 -0700, Mike Orr <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Mike Orr<[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Iain Duncan<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> 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. > > Quixote is a good model. Its heyday was 2002-2005. The developers > have declared it "finished" and are directing new features to a new > similar framework, Qp. But bugs in Quixote are still fixed, and if > somebody contributes a feature patch it's considered. It keeps up > with essential changes in Python such as Unicode and 2.6. (Currently, > 2.6 broke Quixote's PTL import hooks and perhaps SCGI, so the > developers are trying to find a migration path for existing > applications. Users are either sticking with 2.5, avoiding PTL or > precompiling their templates, or trying out ProxyPass instead of > SCGI.)
Indeed. And to properly fix some of the problems you mention i.e. unicode, PTL, Py2.6 and Py3.0 (problems that are actually all very related) Quixote would have needed some extensive/disrupting overhauling. This, afaict, is probably what made the developers opt for QP instead, but note that QP offers also other evolutions e.g. a fuller yet more flexible stack than Quixote. Should also mention that the clean redesign enabled QP (and the companion Durus oodb) to have support for Python 3.0 before Python 3.0 was officially released. And specifically about PTL -- this was replaced with a standalone unicode-supporting package called QPY (now also supports py3.0) and I believe some Quixote users have successfully replaced usage of PTL with post-Quixote QPY. And, given that the start of this thread was about real world web applications, it should probably be mentioned that Quixote powered what probably was the busiest python site in existence then -- and that may well still be so even today: http://gizmoweblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/2-million-page-views-day-with-quixote.html > So one could say that Quixote has been in supported-but-finished mode > for 2 years or perhaps 4. And I assume it will remain that way at > least as long as Quixote applications exist and the MEMS Exchange > (which pays the developers) exist. Or until changes in Python just > make Quixote unviable to support except in older versions. The "extent" of what needs to be supported should also be a consideration -- and could be either reassuring or a cause of concern. QP's codebase is small and clear, requiring only a weekend's read to get a nice comfy sense of how it all works together and what to do to change whatever. On the other hand, the size of pylon's codebase may not be the real direct issue but the list of 3rd party dependencies -- that flash by as easy_install does its thing -- certainly leaves me a lot less reassured, irrespective of how big and active the pylons community may be. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
