Kevin Dangoor wrote: > Before I left yesterday, Gary Godfrey told me about his next step with > that branch and his change was going to make it even more flexible and > useful by making each controller class a "WSGI app" with the ability > to insert "middleware" at any part of your stack. You'll also have > incredible control over how object traversal wants *if you want to*.
I'd be interested in hearing how this works out. Similar things were considered for Pylons controllers, however it seems to greatly over-complicate things when you make individual controllers true WSGI apps, vs merely objects that you call with a WSGI interface. The latter still allows for insertion of some types of "middleware" at any part of the stack, though since your application itself is typically a collection of 'controllers', rather than each individual controller being an App capable of functioning totally independently.... it warps a bunch of terminology that will likely drive many people insane. :) Great to hear about the continued drives for deeper WSGI integration. I should note that while Pylons currently uses Myghty resolving in the core, its on the road-map to split out the resolver sequence to a more WSGI styled approach which is where RhubarbTart appears to be going. This means that future TurboGears versions will vary very little from future Pylons versions. Good times ahead! Cheers, Ben --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
