Kevin, > On 1/11/06, Jonathan LaCour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Jan 11, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Kevin Dangoor wrote: >> >>>Which brings me to PasteDeploy. Ian has been keeping up with the >>>CherryPy 2.2 changes and trying to make sure that the level of WSGI >>>support needed for PasteDeploy is met by CP 2.2's more flexible >>>routing. The CP2.2 transition is something we can make for TG0.9, but >>>the PasteDeploy transition is not. I do think that using PasteDeploy >>>is a good goal and that it should be done right when CP is ready for >>>it. >> >>Does this only apply to 0.9, or does it also apply for 1.0? I have >>no issue with not having Paste Deploy in 0.9, as I can see the clear >>need to get a release out the door. But, I am worried about having >>the first really frozen release go out the door without Paste Deploy. > > > Assuming all of the CP issues are dealt with, I can see TurboGears 1.0 > using PasteDeploy.
Thanks for your response on these issues. I think you have made a good call on this. The project benefits greatly from being clearly managed in this kind of way and I think the direction is a good one. Paste deploy is going to be really good and the way TurboGears uses external components is fantastic so it is tempting for those of us who are keen on wsgi and paste to keep pushing them. yet is is also important to get 0.9 released and I think you are right that it will be good to get CP 2.2 into 0.9 and then have a little stability before moving identity into Paste middleware once Paste deploy is used by TG sometime before 1.0 Dave
