On Oct 31, 2005, at 4:22 PM, mario ruggier wrote:
On Oct 21, 2005, at 1:04 PM, David Binger wrote:
QP uses an htmltext-like class that is a subclass of unicode, and it
organizes the publisher and request and response instances a little
differently from Quixote.
For unicode applications (done in quixote), is it safe to assume
that this htmltext-like unicode subclass is the natural replacement
(evolution) for htmltext?
That might possibly be true, but I would not say it is safe to assume
that
it is true.
Similarly, qpy seems like the natural replacement (evolution) of ptl?
I don't know.
Can these be used in quixote now?
I think that would be very hazardous.
Will a future quixote adopt these instead?
I don't know.
Given the many similarities between quixote and qp, and given the
purposes of each (generic object publisher, specialized application
framework) what are the reasons why qp is a distinct package,
rather than not being built on top of quixote?
I don't think htmltext and qpy's h8 should coexist in an application.
Maybe the above, for a clean implementation of qp, would have
required disruptive changes to quixote. Do you think however that
(with possibly changes to quixote) qp will grow to use it? (i.e.
reduce duplication of generic classes for http/request/response etc)
It seems simpler to avoid that dependency.
_______________________________________________
Quixote-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
