Hi! I use TG2 in two production projects and one internal application in development. I like the components chosen: SA, Genshi... I do much with legacy databases and wouldn't want a database generated by the toolkit, if I had the option. SA is powerful and flexible and I use much of its advanced features: mapping against several tables, inheritance, column properties, query options...
I definitely considered using plain Pylons. On the other hand, I like the decisions choosen by the TG2 team: I would use a similar middleware setup and just add few layers of middleware, as I do now: repoze.profile is awesome. Regarding CSS framework and JS: We don't need to include one out of box, but document the pros and cons of the different approaches: For example, I used tripoli and experienced that it might break widgets to use their different settings for the content because of css rules precendence. Otherwise it's a very nice framework. Toscawidgets isn't dead. We just have to distribute it on more shoulders. We can't make ourselves dependend on single persons and make them responsible for the luck of our projects. Michael On 18 Jun., 02:05, Anthony Theocharis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hear Hear. > > I was glad to read your concerns, Derick, and find that they > generally echo my own. As a developer, I'm very interested in the > current state of TG, as well as in growing a thriving community. > > There's been talk around my office of trying to give the TG site a > facelift, but we're swamped with work right now, so it won't be right > away. > > I've looked at some of the refactoring going on in 2.1, and I'm > pretty impressed with it. Looks cleaner than the 2.0 branch, avoids > some of the confusing situations that lead to bugs. But Derick's > right: there's too much left unpolished in 2.0 right now. > > For instance, I've noticed (after spending the last week debugging > issues introduced with 2.0 final) that there are no tests for most of > the Routes features. As a result, two separate patches broke bits of > routing functionality between 2.0RC1 and 2.0. Another recent patch > passed all tests, but caused all tw.forms widgets to render escaped > xhtml. > > Is anybody focused on fixing bugs in the 2.0 branch? > > Is anybody focused on keeping the web site up to date? > > Do we have 'official' repositories for 2.0 and 2.1? (Different posts > link to different tags on the 2.0 svn, and the bitbucket for 2.1 > isn't linked to from turbogears.org.) Official packaged distributions? > > I love TurboGears, but it's hard to explain to newbies why (even > harder than explaining the related delays to clients!). The learning > curve is too steep, right now, with incomplete or out-of-date > documentation, and no official looking / easy to navigate resources. > > To be fair, the current documentation is way better than the 1.0 docs > were, but, like Derick said, Django's still got us beat by a long shot. > > The one thing I would disagree with Derick on is the inclusion of a > Javascript library with our widgets. I don't think TG2 should be tied > to any JS library. I think that adding unobtrusive javascript to a > page using any combination of decent Widget and JavaScript libraries > is a relatively trivial accomplishment for any programmer savvy > enough to know those words mean. I feel like this differs from > including, say, a default Widget set, or default Templating Engine, > in that including a javascript/css file into a template is a much > more transparent process, and easily grokked by a new developer. But > I'm sure this is a discussion that's already been had. > > Anticipating an interesting (and informative?) thread of discussion, > Anthony > > On 17-Jun-09, at 1:10 PM, Derick Eisenhardt wrote: > > > So, TG2 finally has a stable release. However, it's release has sadly > > come out to little fan fare as far as most of the web is concerned. > > I'm worried by the current state of advertising/marketing and > > documentation, that what there is available currently has very little > > appeal to the majority of web developers out there. For TG2 to make > > any real traction it's going to have to appear to be the best of breed > > web development environments. As far as I can tell the only folks > > currently interested are those of us who have previously been using > > TG1, are hard core python fans, or are already sold on the idea of > > distributed/modular development (WSGI). That unfortunately leaves > > Turbogears with a somewhat niche audience. > > > Django grew it's user base by advertising to people that it was "the > > best, easiest to learn and use web development platform" and "better > > than Ruby on Rails." Their community seems to still be growing at > > rapid rates, while I've seen hardly any difference in new users around > > here since TG2 went final. At the end of the day, the average web > > developer doesn't care what platform they're using, or how it > > works...they just want the quickest and easiest method to get what > > their site running and doing what they want. Currently, TG2 still has > > a good bit of a learning curve. And I'm sorry to burst anyone's > > bubbles, but we DO NOT in any way shape or form have "the best > > documented web development platform." And until it's retardedly easy > > for someone who has never programmed in Python, barely ever used the > > MVC model before, and knows nothing of command lines to jump in and > > make their first TG site in less than an hour, it's going to remain a > > niche audience. > > > Beyond that our site is a bit of a joke currently. We're not even self > > hosting as far as I can tell. Now I know there's http:// > > beta.turbogears.org > > out there, and I know folks are working on the Pages CMS. But we > > really should have had all that up before 2.0 went final. It's truely > > amazing how much a person will judge you're product simply on the the > > looks of your website alone, especially when the product is a web > > development platform. > > > Furthermore, ToscaWidgets is dead in the water as far as I can tell > > and it's widget selection is sparse at best. It is absolutely > > imperative that TG have a full-featured widget toolkit built-in by > > default and it be just as well documented as any other aspect of the > > platform. TG1 had fairly good integration with MochiKit, but TG2's > > current stance appears to be you can either use this basic Tosca stuff > > someone threw together and then let stagnate for a year, or go out and > > find a "real" widget library (jQuery, Dojo, etc), but you'll have to > > figure out how to use it by yourself. And that is the exact opposite > > of the position we should be portraying to new users...if people want > > that situation, why not just use plain ol' Pylons? > > > I hope I have not offended anyone here today, I'm just trying to tell > > it like it is. I implore you to not spend so much time on adding new > > features to 2.1 and focus on getting these core problems taken care of > > first and foremost. Please please please make 2.1 all about polish. > > I'd really love to talk to fellow developers and when I say I use > > Turbogears, they don't respond with a "huh? what's that?" > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
