Just for notice, most of the discussion has been brought on the turbogears-trunk mailing list where it probably relies most, people interested can follow the discussion there.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Mengu <[email protected]> wrote: > hi lukasz, > > i am not a core developer but i call myself a TG evangelist so i guess > i can say something about this. > > as long as TG stays the same, i am not against building TG on top of > pyramid. however do we really need that? TG is already working fast > and smart enough. it has the libraries that we need for rapid > prototyping or building applications fast. i haven't needed anything > that doesn't exist in TG ecosystem but exists in pyramid's. > > another thing is pylons, as we know it, is dead. there will only be > pyramid and pyramid users has a different understanding of > development. they are choosing the long way because pyramid is not a > full stack framework like TG. the ones who don't want to do it the > long way are either coming to TG or going to django. > > from what you're saying i understand that you are not happy with TG. > please tell us why. because as our community grows on both IRC and the > ML, we get requests and many of them are taken into consideration. the > core developers are trying hard to build a strong application and a > happy community. because we believe we can pull it off. > > On Jul 8, 9:28 pm, Lukasz Szybalski <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Not everything was well done, though: The Pyramid merger announcement was >> > handled poorly. I'll discuss the future with Pyramid more thoroughly below. >> >> > We discussed what we want to see for this year, and I think our goals are >> > more than reasonable. We want to get 2.2 out shortly (originally, we were >> > thinking before Pycon, but I'm not sure we can after my absence of the past >> > couple months). We want to get 2.3 underway, and we have some pretty decent >> > sized plans for 2.3, and more on that below as well. We also have some >> > plans for the website, some updates we want to see happen. We also want to >> > find ways to expand the development team. We also discussed our need for >> > Python3 support, though we don't have a firm timeline for that. Finally, we >> > discussed the need for us to standardize on a JavaScript widget toolkit. >> >> > Our plans for 2.2 are as follows: We want to either make or integrate a >> > Widget browser. We're looking to switch to ToscaWidgets 2 by default, since >> > they're about to release a stable version. We want to reduce the number of >> > packages we have to show in our PyPI, in particular by >> > repoze.what-quickstart and repoze.what-pylons. We also want to merge in >> > work by Chris Perkins to make Object Dispatch into an external package >> > named Crank. >> >> > Our plans for 2.3 are as follows: Major speed improvements, possibly some >> > backward incompatibilities will be introduced. We're planning on removing >> > the dependency on Pylons entirely in this branch. Possibly we're going to >> > replace the repoze.what/repoze.who packages as well as the default >> > Authentication&Authorization mechanism. >> >> > Our directions of inquiry for Python3 are as follows: We're going to look >> > at marrow as a possible replacement for Paste. The other option is to look >> > at Pyramid's Paste Replacement. We'll also need to evaluate other libraries >> > and modules, as not everything is supporting Python3, and we need to move >> > forward soon. >> >> > For the JavaScript toolkits, we need to evalute Bootstrap, jQuery UI, and >> > even Dojo. We did not come to a final decision at the time of the meeting, >> > though it seems like we're going to settle on Bootstrap, based on recent >> > conversations on the mailing lists. >> >> > For the Pyramid merger, most of us who are using TurboGears are happy with >> > the direction things are going for TG. After discussion, we came to the >> > consensus that the product built on top of Pyramid that provides a TG-like >> > layer should not be called TG3, but rather Orion. We're also leaning >> > towards not promoting it as the evolution of TurboGears. TG isn't perfect, >> > but we're happy with it, and want to continue to extend it, improve it, and >> > make it vibrant again. >> >> To: Trubogears2 steering committee/TG2 Core developers >> >> My goal of writing today is to convince TG2 core developers to reconsider >> their plans for not using pyramid, embrace the new changes in >> pylons(pyramid), and reconfirm the state of the union between turbogears2 >> and pylons project. Turbogears2 pylons backbone was a great success, it >> consolidated python web frameworks, and provided a bigger community to >> compete with others like django, ROR and was probably the perfect choice to >> develop web applications fast. >> Now 3 years later Turbogears2 (1K Downloads since 04/2012) is still strong >> but pylons (11K Downloads) have merged with repoze.bfg(3K Downloads) to >> create pyramid(14K Downloads since 05/2012), which merged the web >> frameworks even more and brought over some of zope/plone community with it. >> What these number mean for turbogears future is that if tg2 reconfirms >> their ties to pyramid, it might become one of the most powerfull contender >> to django (212K downloads). >> >> What are some pro's and cons with following pylons evolution: >> >> Pro: >> --Features that pyramid is capable of would work by default in turbogears, >> no rewrite of code would be required to take tg2 into python3 for example, >> take the speed improvements, etc... >> --All the components that were mentioned above from repoze.XXX would still >> be valid and would follow pyramid upgrades and no additional work would be >> required to get them working. >> --Any changes to Paste would already be done in pyramid. >> --Turbogears choice of most downloaded components as a default would bring >> over few users that have high learning curve because of pyramid default >> scaffolds selections. >> --More consolidation would mean more of most common packages would be >> available to users. >> -- Instead of splitting from pylons embrace the evolution of pylons would >> mean more users are reassured tg2 is the right choice to build on. >> >> Cons: >> -- Some work is required to replace pylons components with pyramid >> -- Some tg.ext would need to be updated to support new changes. >> -- Core developers would have to go a little outside of their comfort zone >> by not just "being happy" with current state of tg2 but to take it to the >> next level. >> -- Won't be able to "design" the new framework to replace pylons part, but >> rather will need to include already written software. >> >> TG won't be perfect with pyramid at its core but I think a lot more users >> will be happy with it, and want to continue to extend it, improve it, and >> make it vibrant again. >> >> Would developers consider following the evolution of pylons and including >> pyramid into turbogears? >> >> Thank you, >> Lucas > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
