Hi, I'm tempted to comment on some of the comments you've interspersed with my text, but I'll focus on your summary (thanks for summing it up, BTW):
On Thursday 01 November 2001 15:06, Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > As the project manager for Webware, here are some final decisions: > > These status quo items all stay: > - the name WebKit > - WebKit as an app server focused on easy of use and > extensibility - Webware as an umbrella for Webware components I'll agree to disagree :-) ... what do other people think?? (I'm really curious) > - a Webware component is simply a Python package with some > additional conventions sure, but we shouldn't stipulate that the docs must be written in the same form as Webware's (HTML). I'm thinking from the perspective of Cheetah's docs here. > - a WebKit plug-in is simply a Webware component loaded at > launch time - if a WebKit plug-in needs to so some special set up, > it does so via __init__.py like any good Python package does But the loading logic should be handled by the launcher script rather than the AppServer itself. This is what I was getting at. > - It's "from SomeKit import SomeModule" and will not be "from > Webware.SomeKit import SomModule" What do other people think about this? My dislike of it primarilly stems from 'MiscUtils' and 'WebUtils'. If the are going to be top-level packages they should have names that clearly identify them as part of Webware. > I agree that: > > - Webware should have a setup.py > - Webware should make site-wide installation easy > - Webware should make virtual hosting easy > - Webware can always use better marketing including some good ideas > from Tavis - WebKit should be more amenable and encouraging to > writing all output to an umbrella directory that can easily live > outside of WebKit/ - Webware needs a "Building a site" tutorial > that takes the user through the steps of building a site, starting > with WebKit and incorporating MiddleKit and UserKit. Basically, > showing the canonical way to do things. Good! What do you think about using LaTeX? > I think that: > > - Webware programs like Generate.py and Launch.py need to use their > own Webware components (I know this from experience). The Webware/ > umbrella directory facilitates this. I can see your argument there, but how are externally developed packages such as Cheetah to fit in with this model? > - Users who develop sites are not feeling burdened by anything > other than: - lack of easy site wide install > - lack of virtual hosting > - the usual need for more docs, features and regression tests > - Rearranging the directory structure wrt to WebKit vs. Webware and > modularity, will not improve a Webware user's productivity. I'm thinking from the perspective of a component developer here. > I'm open to: > > - more discussion on COMKit being external vs. internal to WebKit Good. > - more discussion as to the virtues of TaskKit > ^ I suggest these become discussion threads in their own right. If people in Geoff's company are using it maybe the discussion should be about whether it should be used for SessionStore. My argument isn't that it's not usefull, but that it's not appropriate for SessionStore. > - focused, preferably-separate contribs like: > - setup.py > - WebKit's output directory is one, configurable umbrella > directory > You already have: > > - the ability to dictate what plug-ins are loaded or not loaded via > WebKit/Configs/AppServer.config But the loading procedure is handled by the AppServer and assumes a particular directory structure. My argument is that the launcher script is a more natural place to load the plugins from. > - the ability to develop kick ass sites with Webware (vorbis.com, > foreclosures.lycos.com) :-) This WEP is definately not disputing that. Webware rocks! Cheers, Tavis _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
