On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Vlad K. <[email protected]> wrote: > Question: is departure from Paste and PasteScript permanent? Is it a long > term goal to depart from PasteDeploy as well in the future versions? I don't > have anything against Paste* libs, of course, just asking because I welcome > any reduction in the size of dependencies and framework codebase.
Paste and PasteScript were dropped because they hadn't been ported to Python 3 and it didn't seem worth the effort to do so. Half their features are obsolete, little used, or superceded by child distributions (WebOb, PasteOb). Paste's achievements cannot be underestimated: it was the catalyst that made interoperable WSGI frameworks a reality. But it had outgrown its original codebase. So Chris took the subset Pyramid needed (a creator and a runner), ported them to 3, and put them into Pyramid. PasteDeploy *is* working in Python 3, and it does one small job in a relatively straightforward manner (parsing those config sections and the "egg:" lines in them), so there's little reason to change it further. (Although I would like to see a better API and docs someday.) There has been talk in the past about dropping the INI file from the Pyramid core, but now that pserve and pcreate are part of Pyramid, that can't be done. It's more likely that the template adapters will be spun off (pyramid_mako and pyramid_chameleon), since they're an application dependency rather than a core dependency. -- 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.
