blflamme wrote: > I must agree that pyramid_pylons is not a good name to use because now we'll get 3 levels of explanations and it's event more confusing:
How about 'pyramid_pylonsish' ? Then we can define "pylonsish" as "like Pylons 1". On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Iain Duncan <[email protected]> wrote: > We have an opportunity here to really brand Pyramid as 'the experts python > framework' and give it as solid an identity as Django ( something I think we > can all agree they did *very* well. I do kinda feel that Pyramid takes two steps in Django's direction compared to Pylons 1. One is MV vs MVC. The other is pulling some things into the core that used to be middleware; e.g., routing, and implementing other things in a non-middleware way; e.g., sessions. Those are areas where Pylons 1's direction didn't turn out to be as fruitful as anticipated. Middleware is a rather clunky API for writing framework components. But even though Pyramid is more "monolithic" than Pylons 1 on the surface, it still uses best-of-breed third-party packages like WebOb much more than Django, and is much more extensible and provides more hooks for third-party functionality and implementations, for those who want something beyond the core. -- 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.
