My answer would be different from Ben's: If you consider yourself an advanced developer, or expect to be doing advance development on this project, I would dive in by using repoze.bfg. If you aren't doing anything terribly complex or don't expect to need extensability, then yeah, Pylons is more beginner friendly. But the 5 year span makes me think you'd be better off using repoze.bfg and transitioning from that to Pyramid.
my two cents having used both. iain On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ben Bangert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 14, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Josh Kelley wrote: > > > Should we proceed with Pylons, since it isn't going away, and since a > > Pylons-to-Pyramid upgrade path will exist at some point? (I saw a > > comment that upgrading in the future will be easier if you avoid the > > use of Pylons pseudo-globals like tmpl_context and request to ease the > > Pyramid transition; since I'm very new to Pylons and the code I've > > seen uses those pseudo-globals heavily, what does avoiding them look > > like?) > > Yes, go this route, Pylons also has substantially more beginner friendly > documentation and a book that's very helpful for this case. Don't worry > about avoiding those globals right now, but do follow the advice on how to > avoid mixing concerns here: > > http://docs.pylonshq.com/faq/pyramid.html#should-i-port-my-pylons-1-0-project-to-pyramid > > I might not have been clear enough, that I'm mainly saying to avoid the use > of Pylons globals *everywhere*, using them in your controllers is fine of > course. I'm mainly referring to code I've seen where people use the Pylons > globals in 3rd party modules, sqlalchemy domain models, deep in other > non-controller modules, etc. If the only place you utilize the Pylons > globals is in your controllers, that'll substantially help porting later. > > > One last question, which hopefully won't come across as flamebait, and > > which is probably hard to answer, since it may require a crystal > > ball... How stable is all of this expected to be in the long term? > > Our goal is a web-based application that we hope to be selling and > > supporting for five years or more, and it doesn't give me a good > > feeling to see that the framework we'd picked is announced as > > transitioning from 1.0 to legacy before we could even start coding. > > Is Pyramid expected to be stable? Or would another framework be > > better for extended-long-term use? Or is it silly to expect this kind > > of stability for web development? (Like I said, we're new to web > > development in general.) > > I wrote a blog post to try and help alleviate confusion about Pylons 1.0 > and 'legacy': > http://be.groovie.org/post/1558848023/notes-on-the-pylons-repoze-bfg-merger > > Short answer, Pylons isn't going anywhere, its still getting features, bug > fixes, etc. > > Pyramid will be stable in the future, and we're aiming on it being as > stable as Pylons has been for the long term. > > Cheers, > Ben > > -- > 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]<pylons-discuss%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en. > > -- 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.
