There's this, from a couple of years ago, back when the nascent Pyramid was going by the pseudonym "Marco". I encountered the PCA (as the ZCA should have been called) and went hunting around for some other approaches to providing a component architecture:
http://bel-epa.com/notes/Marco/notes.xml I didn't spot the Qt approach that you mentioned in your other post but I would be interested in a comparative review. The "Zope shudders" are simply ill-informed prejudice - I've yet to see a substantial argument to be made against using the ZCA in a well-defined role as a component architecture specification. If folks want to diss the ZCA, they should be proposing alternative approaches and making cogent arguments in support of them. Actually, I'd /really/ be interested in any informed discussion of component architecture issues that used Pyramid as a springboard. Cheers, Graham Higgins. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-discuss/-/-ltxSByv6A4J. 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.
