[email protected] wrote: >> TG or Rails or Django have no magic dust, they just make a lot of >> assumptions (RoR even more) that bigger frameworks don't. >> > > What are these assumptions that Zope/J2EE/ASP crowd don't make? >
Just an example. Coming from zope, I found weird at first that the only supported configuration in TG was a single database connection. I needed six of them, with three different engines. This is not a criticism, after all I was perfectly able to support my configuration because the underlying framework source was compact and readable, but a newbie would have been able to do that in Z3 out of the box. > These are significant because TurboGears is *much* nicer to learn than > Zope. > Yes, but, for instance, the MVC pattern is much more flexible when approached from a schema/interface/adapter point of view. I would _love_ to have the @@views in TG or in TW, they make a lot of sense. Including/extending templates, or widget composition (I have not tried TW yet), does not seem as natural, to me. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
