-> >So with WSGI you can compose applications inside a single process,
-> >wrap applications (e.g., impose a transaction boundary or catch
-> >exceptions), run tests in a simulated environment, or even do the
-> >URL traversal as a series of WSGI requests.
->
-> This seems to boil down to the variations of the first point, that
-> you can compose
-> applications, in-process, using WSGI. I'm still trying to figure out
-> why I need that.
Hi, David,
I think this may be the crux of the issue:
It's not clear that *you* need it. Other people seem to *want* it,
however. So,
Will Quixote, in the future, move only in directions that are
primarily useful to mems-exchange?
I don't want to be combative, I'm truly curious ;).
For example, let's take the session2 code. It's fairly mature (IMO) and
solves several problems incurred by the design of the session management
code included with Quixote. These problems occur because Quixote was
more or less designed around a process-based execution model and using
the Durus ODB for storage. Moreover, the issue of session support has
been an issue throughout Quixote's history. Yet there's no urgency on
the part of mems-exchange to check these things into Quixote, because
they're not problems you guys have, or need to solve, or really even
care about. I don't want to fork Quixote -- if that's even possible, I
haven't thought about the license in this context -- over something as
silly as sessions, but it's something that I've been contemplating with
increasing frequency because I *hate* maintaining session2 and the WSGI
packages as separate items.
Another thing I would dearly like to do is write a bunch of functional
tests for Quixote using twill. I could do that, but -- as is -- no-one
would use them until they became part of Quixote. It seems sort of
silly to write, document, and release a test suite that only I would
use.
So overall I guess I'm saying that I'd like to see Quixote development
open up a bit so that others of us -- me, in particular -- can buy into
it more.
I might well be alone in this, and I don't want to seem like I'm
kvetching without point, either. I love Quixote, and you guys designed
it, built it, released it, and are maintaining it. I just think things
may evolve in interesting and useful directions with a more bazaar
style of development.
cheers,
--titus
_______________________________________________
Quixote-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
