Titus Brown wrote:
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 ;).
From my perspective, it would be easy for Quixote development to open
up in this way if it uses WSGI in a more core way. Which is why it
seems like a natural directory for Quixote.
So, taking session2 as an example, that could be usable as WSGI
middleware. It *would* require some framework hooks at some level, to
make the object available as part of the Quixote request object. Those
could probably be generalized, or who-knows-what, but there needs to be
something. But all of the hard work can go in the middleware, which
doesn't need to be part of the Quixote package directly. And the hook
isn't hard to include in Quixote; in contrast, actual session
implementations require a fair amount of maintenance, and reluctance on
MEMS' part to taking that code in is quite reasonable. And if session2
stops being maintained, someone can just use someone else's middleware
with a Quixote hook.
David pointed out the issue: "Our business has never been,
and will probably never be, web framework development, or
coordinating open source projects." And that would be fine if Quixote
had a more "open" framework, and that doesn't have to mean
everyone-edits-the-code, it can just mean giving people an architecture
it is easy to plug in to. WSGI is one such architecture; notable since
it's the only one that people are using in this way. Well, that and
some stuff in Zope, but I'm guessing people here aren't thinking about
moving to Zope.
--
Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org
_______________________________________________
Quixote-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
