On Tue, 04.01.2005, 08:53 -0500 Eric Radman wrote:
On 11:53 Mon 03 Jan , Winston Wolff wrote:
So regarding WSGIKit and Webware, how do you think we should proceed as far as the code base and development goes? Should we try to move Webware over to use WSGI, should we develop them in parallel?
I think WSGIKit and Webware should be maintained in parallel. Features and innovations can be borrowed, so development in one can be ported to the other if it's appropriate.
+1
The overall question about Webware is the future direction this framework wants to take and what makes it different from other frameworks. I just looked once again at CherryPy-2.0-beta
http://www.cherrypy.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-announce-list
which has some nice ideas and which people generally seem to like
http://pyre.third-bit.com/pywebblog/
FWIW, I think it might also have to do with the fact he's implemented the code a few times before, so everything will just feel smoother. Oh, and he was using SQLObject at the same time he used CherryPy ;) And he had a tutorial about making a database-backed website, which is what everyone wants to do, but a lot of frameworks don't properly focus on. Including Webware.
Is the presentation on http://colorstudy.com/docs/shootout.html
what makes people think they want to give Webware a try?
I tried to be neutral in that, and ended up not putting as much opinion as might be useful. But then, it's kind of out-of-date as well.
If I was going to push Webware, I'd talk about the stability of its interface, its age, the community, and the availability of experienced consultants. It's probably second to Zope from that perspective (in the Python world, though maybe Quixote is second). I wish Webware was doing better on all of those attributes, and it's kind of lame how far the second place is from the first place. And it's lame how far Zope is from PHP; Python is missing out big, any way you look at it. But that's another topic.
Are Aspects (simple solution in CherryPy) something people would like to see integrated in Webware?
I don't like aspects; I'm not sure they exist anymore in CherryPy 2? They are basically macros, and don't go well with Python.
+1 from me
Is http://www.pythonweb.org/ something worth looking at?
I think it's Just Another Framework, that happens to be using what looks like a canonical name.
Or are continuations
On Mo, den 03.01.2005, 16:19 +0000 Nick Murtagh wrote:
Interesting, I recently came across this:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-contin.html
which talks about using continuations in web programming (Apache Cocoon). It would be cool to have something like this in Python. Should be doable with stackless, I've heard mention of people using stackless with zope.
worth putting some more effort in?
They won't be compatible with Webware. Continuation-based frameworks are always independent frameworks, as it's a very different structure from a normal framework. I don't know if they'd even be compatible with WSGI (though maybe they would; but not everything is -- async ala Twisted is not exactly compatible).
Maybe using generators and annotations could make Webware much more
sophisticated
There's some ideas here. I'm very interested in using decorators instead of subclassing, for instance. And there's other ways of making things more functional. I've been using Component and LoginKit in the w4py.org repository, and I find them useful. But I don't think anyone else uses them.
At a certain point when you add in a lot of changes, will it be Webware? I'll be honest, part of what I want from WSGI is the possibility to move beyond the Webware interface without splitting environments; which is why I want to have something that is backward compatible with Webware while leaving the possibility for using novel new techniques alongside it. Because I can imagine a better interface, but I don't want to break Webware trying to get there. That might have made sense several years ago, but it doesn't make sense now, that's just not the place Webware is strategically anymore.
And, really, while I want to support Webware applications indefinitely, it might not be that long before I'm programming with something else. Achieving that incrementally is part of what I want to do with WSGIKit -- so that Webware melts away more than me just choosing (or making) Yet Another Framework. WSGIKit supports a thin Webware interface over a bunch of neutral components, which means choosing Webware at that point would be more of an aesthetic choice than a platform choice. Which I think is a good way to ask users to make that choice. The way things are now, it's more about weighing the shortcomings rather than looking for the advantages.
-- Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list Webware-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
