On 6/25/07, anderbubble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As a TurboGears user, I am very interested in the possible migration > of TurboGears to a Pylons base. It seems to me that Pylons is headed > in the direction that TurboGears wants to/should be, but is > unencumbered by the legacy of TurboGears' initial publicity and fame. > > I wonder, however, if TurboGears is to be reimplemented on top of > Pylons, what is TurboGears? Is it simply a specific configuration of > Pylons? Is it a helper module that makes Pylons behave with TurboGears- > like defaults? Is it a migration script that helps developers migrate > TG-1.x projects? it's probably what is at here http://trac.turbogears.org/browser/branches/pygears which is close to the special configuration you are suggested. > > ~jon > > On Jun 25, 7:50 am, Jonathan LaCour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote: > > > Indeed and I was very happy to learn about the integration but I found > > > that a bit randomly, it's too bad that there hasn't been a clearer and > > > wider announcement about it. It's really hard to understand where the > > > project stands currently :( > > > > Yes, we didn't really do a very good job of publicizing the sprint this > > past weekend, or explaining what it was about. This is largely because > > it was designed as an experiment to see if it would be possible to write > > TurboGears 2.0 on top of Pylons, and was put together so quickly. > > > > TurboGears on top of Pylons is appealing for a lot of the reasons > > given in the original message. TurboGears and Pylons are extremely > > similar projects with extremely similar goals, and it makes little > > sense to me for both of them to duplicate so much effort. For a while, > > TurboGears was moving at breakneck speed from both a development and a > > marketing perspective, but the project has slowed down quite a bit in > > both aspects. I think this has a lot to do with the weight of so much > > code on the shoulders of very few people, a lot of which doesn't really > > belong in the core of a web framework. > > > > If we reduce this burden by taking advantage of what is available > > elsewhere, we can focus on keeping the core small, and encouraging > > people to build on top of it with separate projects that can take > > advantage of all the WSGI-goodness that we will have access to. > > > > As for where the project is headed, who knows? The experiment this past > > weekend was a resounding success in the eyes of all that were > > present, but > > there is still a lot to do. A frank discussion about how to move > > forward > > is probably in order, and I think that will happen very soon. > > > > -- > > Jonathan LaCourhttp://cleverdevil.org > > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
