Hi all.
So, it's about time that WebOb came to 1.0. For 1.0 I'd like to
settle the API as much as possible. But I'd also like to move further
to getting WebOb used for more frameworks. I don't expect that to
happen before 1.0, but if there are API changes that will make that
easier later, then
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 2007/10/22, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I redid the front page to make it more brief: http://pythonpaste.org/webob/
>
> Much better; I'll try to review it in more detail later. Right now a
> few details jump off the page to me: GET and POST are verbs and IMO
> poo
On 23-10-2007, Ian Bicking wrote:
> I redid the front page to make it more brief:
> http://pythonpaste.org/webob/
Fine.
I had to use it to understand what is the benefit of webob, the examples
was not very clear in the first read.
The yaro's page was more clear to me for example.
>
> I stop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 2007/10/22, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I redid the front page to make it more brief: http://pythonpaste.org/webob/
>
> Much better; I'll try to review it in more detail later. Right now a
> few details jump off the p
2007/10/22, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I redid the front page to make it more brief: http://pythonpaste.org/webob/
Much better; I'll try to review it in more detail later. Right now a
few details jump off the page to me: GET and POST are verbs and IMO
poor names for what they represent; pa
> I redid the front page to make it more brief: http://
> pythonpaste.org/webob/
I suggest a paragraph saying what WebOb is, including what problem it
is trying to solve. I'd find this interesting as it is not at all
clear to me.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
___
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 2007/10/22, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> I briefly looked at the tutorial and was put off a little by the
>>> interactive prompt style of the examples; that seems so unrealistic
>>> that I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just say "put this in a file
>>> and run
Adam Atlas wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2007, at 12:09, William Dode wrote:
>
>> So, don't you think web-sig should officialy support such library ?
>> Include it in the lib stantard or in a wsgiorg library ?
>>
>
> I don't really like the idea of having something like this be part of
> the standard libr
2007/10/22, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I briefly looked at the tutorial and was put off a little by the
> > interactive prompt style of the examples; that seems so unrealistic
> > that I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just say "put this in a file
> > and run it like this"?
>
> The sid
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:01:52AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 2007/8/15, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I may be totally behind the times here, but I've always found it odd
> to have separate request and response objects -- the functionalities
> or APIs don't really overlap, so why not ha
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Anyway, I'd be interested in feedback. We've talked a little about a
>> shared request object -- only a little, and I don't know if it is really
>> a realistic goal to even try. But I think this request object is a
>> considerably higher quality than any other request o
Thanks! I stand educated.
2007/10/22, Jacob Smullyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:01:52AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > 2007/8/15, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I may be totally behind the times here, but I've always found it odd
> > to have separate request and re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Cool. I already heard in the grapevibe about webob.py.
>
>> Anyway, I'd be interested in feedback. We've talked a little about a
>> shared request object -- only a little, and I don't know if it is really
>> a realistic goa
On 22 Oct 2007, at 12:09, William Dode wrote:
> So, don't you think web-sig should officialy support such library ?
> Include it in the lib stantard or in a wsgiorg library ?
>
I don't really like the idea of having something like this be part of
the standard library; it's sort of neither here
2007/8/15, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Lately I got on a kick and extracted/refined/reimplemented a bunch of
> stuff from Paste. The result is the not-quite-released WebOb (I don't
> want to do a release until I think people should use it instead of
> Paste, to the degree the two overlap --
On 10/22/07, William Dode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, don't you think web-sig should officialy support such library ?
> Include it in the lib stantard or in a wsgiorg library ?
I'm strongly against adding more non-Python-runtime batteries to the
standard library. The plethora of packages alr
William Dode ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> Since the announce of ian about webob, i did two things with it.
>
> First i include it in my personal web framework, it was very easy, i had
> just to remove all my crappy equivalent functions. It make my framework
> a little bit more clean and i can inherit
Hi,
Since the announce of ian about webob, i did two things with it.
First i include it in my personal web framework, it was very easy, i had
just to remove all my crappy equivalent functions. It make my framework
a little bit more clean and i can inherit new features.
Second, most important,
Howdy all.
Lately I got on a kick and extracted/refined/reimplemented a bunch of
stuff from Paste. The result is the not-quite-released WebOb (I don't
want to do a release until I think people should use it instead of
Paste, to the degree the two overlap -- and it's not *quite* ready for
that
19 matches
Mail list logo
