Chuck Esterbrook schrieb: > I was referring to the rash of unsubscribes that followed shortly > after the roadmap.
Just reread what I wrote, because this made me a bit sad, too. Actually I only wanted to start a *discussion* about the future of Webware, not pinpoint a fixed roadmap already. I think I made it clear enough that all I wrote was a suggestion that I will follow if I do not get any other input or help. But after rereading I see that my fatal fault was probably the word "dead end" that I used somewhere in one sentence. I fear some people only read and misunderstood that single word. I'm sorry for that. What I actually wrote was that Webware *as we know it* has come to a dead end, with which I meant that we cannot just continue to provide small bugfixes and patches if we want to use Webware in the future, but we have to make some fundamental changes and adaptions. For instance, we need to provide an alternative to the ThreadedAppServer which cannot fully utilize multi core machines. Or we need to adapt Webware to more modern naming conventions. We need to find ways to port unmaintained and outdated plug-ins to the Py 3 era etc. see my last postings. And with my roadmap I wanted to show *a way out* of that perceived dead end in a manner that seemed feasible to me. I'm sorry again for my poor wording. I'm not a marketing guy, I just write what I think and that is often mistakable, impolitical or unintelligent (though I'm slowly learning and improving...) > Or we could support the fooBar names for people who prefer them. :-) Naming conventions are taken really seriously in Python nowadays. In Python 3, all the camelcase names in the standard lib were changed. By the way, the 4 spaces indents are now carved in stone as well (see QOTW at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.general/600191 ;-) > Python's approach of naming is still odd and inconsistent. Consider > dictionary with fromkeys, has_key and popitem. Which is it? "foobar" > or "foo_bar"? Maybe they cleaned that up in 3.0; I haven't checked. It's cleaned up. has_key has been removed, both because it's not needed any more and because of the inconsistent name. As I said, nowaways naming is taken seriously. Cleaning up all the bad names was one of the major issues of Python 3, and we will need to do similar clean-up and changes in Webware as well for a future version based on Python 3. > I did plenty of maintenance work on Webware after it became usable and > was in production environments. As explained in my previous message, I > became convinced we could do better than Python and subsequently > started Cobra. And I continue to do plenty of detail work on Cobra > including bug fixes and code cleanup. Certainly, I don't want to downplay that. It's just that everyone has their personal sweetspot and my impression was yours is creating something new and original rather than working on something old. Back to the future of Webware, I want to emphasize: Webware 1.0 is available now and better than ever, the 1.x branch will be supported for many years, and there *is* a future for Webware beyond that even if nobody else will contribute and help (which I don't hope). -- Christoph ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Webware-devel mailing list Webware-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
