I think we should not include reportlab in the basic web2py framework. I suggest that we keep a "basic web2py framework", as small as possible, with more or less the current framework scope. It has a very clear focus (web entreprise applications) and it's doing it very well. And it is easy to understand and to learn. We may develop an "extended web2py framework" that embeds goodies that are out of scope of the basic framework, but are of general interest. It would be nice that the extended framework would be composed of optional extensions. Reportlab would be an excellent candidate for such an extension. However, such an extended framework would be difficult to apprehend.
This concept of multiple optional extensions leads to the classical configuration management nightmare: what are the versions of the various extensions that are compatible with each other. It leads also to the Java platform nightmare: hundreds of competing extension specifications, known in the Java world as JSR (Java Specification Request). As far as I am concerned, I would prefer that web2py remains a dream, and does not become a nightmare. I dislike Java for this very reason: too many things to know to make anything work. So, my advice is that we stick to a basic framework, with a plug-in mechanism. Reportlab does not need to be natively integrated with web2py. What we need is an easy wy to integrate reportlab with web2py, if we need and like it. For a start, a good cookbook entry may be enough. It's not a matter of size, it's a matter of complexity. Bruno --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" 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/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
