Will there be a python 3.x version also? On 5 nov., 20:57, Ben Bangert <[email protected]> wrote: > As some may have noticed in the tweetsphere (or whatever the catchy term is > for that), a Pylons + repoze.bfg framework merger is under way. Some will be > shocked, sad, excited, etc. at this move. We wanted to have a good amount of > 'support' under the new combined effort which was the main reason there was a > lapse in the official announcement. I believe there is now a rather good base > of documentation support to help people understand the new combined efforts. > > If you're in a rush, and want to jump to bullet points, we've put up a FAQ in > the hopes of answering the most obvious questions people will > have:http://docs.pylonshq.com/#faq > > For those curious about the why, I think Chris McDonough's personal > perspective perfectly sums up my own thoughts and reasons, included in his > announcement to the repoze.bfg mail list. I have included it here: > > <repoze.bfg announce> > Over the last few months, I've been collaborating pretty meaningfully with > Ben Bangert, the lead developer of the Pylons (http://pylonshq.com) web > framework. This collaboration started because Ben and I have "competing" web > frameworks, both written in Python. Our repoze.bfg and Ben's Pylons share > almost exactly the same scope. They are both "lightweight" web frameworks. > They use similar models for mapping URLs to code. They appeal to roughly the > same sort of people. > > In the meantime, it's clear that there is a limited amount of oxygen in the > Python web framework world: only the frameworks which are clear winners will > prosper and survive long-term. No potential developer has the time to > evaluate 20 separate web frameworks, it just takes too long. Even if they > did, to an impartial evaluator, it would be extremely difficult to make a > choice between two frameworks as similar as Pylons and repoze.bfg. > > Ben and I, as well as other folks including Paul Everitt, Mark Ramm, and > Chris Rossi met in Las Vegas a few weeks ago to talk about merging Pylons and > repoze.bfg. To everyone's surprise, consensus was pretty easy: not only > should it be done, it should be done swiftly. We agreed to collapse the > crowded Python web framework world a bit in order for there to be slightly > more oxygen for everyone to breathe in there. > > Thus, BFG has now become Pyramid (http://docs.pylonshq.com/pyramid/dev/), and > is now part of the Pylons Project. "The Pylons Project" is the project name > for a collection of related technologies. Pyramid is the first "new" package > which is part of the Pylons Project. Other packages to the collection will > be added over time, likely including higher-level components such as > applications and other frameworks which rely on a particular persistence > mechanism (Pyramid does not). The first release of Pyramid 1.0a1 was made > today to PyPI. Seehttp://docs.pylonshq.com/pyramid/dev/narr/install.html > for install instructions. > > Personally, I couldn't be happier about this. I'm proud of the work we've > done so far, and I'm extremely optimistic about the future of Pyramid and the > Pylons Project. > > repoze.bfg 1.3 (made November 1, 2010) will be its last major release. Minor > updates will be made for critical bug fixes (and so there may be a 1.3.1, > 1.3.2, etc), but new feature development will take place in Pyramid. Unless > forked, repoze.bfg won't see a 1.4 release. While Pyramid is technically > backwards incompatible with repoze.bfg, you won't have to do much to use your > existing repoze.bfg applications on Pyramid. There's automation which will > change most of your import statements and ZCML declarations. > Seehttp://docs.pylonshq.com/pyramid/dev/tutorials/bfg/index.html. The Repoze > project will continue to exist. Plenty of Repoze software exists that has > nothing to do with repoze.bfg. > > The Pylons 1.0 web framework, Ben tells me, will be shifted into legacy > status once Pyramid has a non-alpha release. > </repoze.bfg announce> > > So for those wondering, will there be a Pylons 2.0? No, not in the sense that > the pylons package will hit 2.0. Unfortunately due to reasons I've outlined > here:http://docs.pylonshq.com/faq/pylonsproject.html#why-not-just-continue... > > Worried about your Pylons 1.0 projects? Don't be! The pylons package isn't > going anywhere, and will continue to receive bug fixes and security fixes. I > completely understand that some projects using Pylons might be so large a > transition to pyramid isn't in the picture, for many of these projects, even > shifting to Pylons 1.0 from 0.9.7 wasn't feasible. > > At the moment, the only reasonable way to transition for those interested is > to run your existing pylons application inside pyramid. This is not a problem > thanks to the use of WSGI in hooking things up, the existing pylons app can > be 'mounted' inside the pyramid app. At that point, you can then transition > controllers to the equivalent functionality in pyramid (view handlers). > > In the future, I would not rule out a Pylons 1.1 if some developers were > interested in building a more graceful transition path as well. But for early > adopters, there is no shortage of documentation available now, more so than > is available for various Pylons 1.0 features in many cases. > > I really look forward to the large increase in the core developer base this > brings to the new Pylons Project, and the ability to expand our scope to > start building higher level and more useful tools. > > Cheers, > Ben Bangert
-- 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.
