-> I'm not opposed to making a "new framework" for users, but I'm not -> committed to it either. It's way premature to decide that; it partly -> depends on what direction TG and Quixote go over the next several -> months, whether TG succeeds in its grand vision and settles down and -> becomes more stable, whether a compatible "Quixote with batteries" -> distribution is indicated, and whether I'd want to trust my own sites -> to my implementation. But I'd never make a complete old-style -> framework with its own servers, session object, and other esoterica. -> At most I'd make a Paste "component" for Quixote-like applications -> (which may or may not be 100% compatible with Quixote). If that's a -> framework, it's so lightweight it's not gonna make the sky fall. -> -> I don't know what to do about the MEMS constraints on Quixote's -> development. But that also is a question that can be answered later. -> Better to get working code up and running, and then it'll be clearer -> how it can best be useful. Just like you made QWIP, knowing it would -> be useful for something, but not sure exactly what.
QWIP (the WSGI adapter for Quixote) is a perfect example of something that is intrusive only when you know you need it, by which point you're willing to accept the burden. What you want to do sounds qualitatively different. Also, making something that looks like Quixote (mostly), acts like Quixote (mostly), is based on Quixote (mostly), but isn't Quixote (mostly) just adds to the tyranny of choice. ;) I'll shut up now -- this is largely a moot point for me, because I'm not starting any new Web sites at the moment, and I've got tons of other stuff going on with testing work. Should the prospects for Quixote 3 open up, I'm happy to pour my energies in to that. Until then, I'll be working on the session2/QWIP add-on model. --titus _______________________________________________ Quixote-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
