Thank you for the extra CC, that was perfect timing :). To address Foxboron, I would choose Django as a framework purely so that we could integrate it into the same wsgi engine that archweb uses on the current servers and have it work seamlessly. But additionally, Django provides a good baked in user model which we would otherwise have to either implement or use an existing user framework for Flask/SQLAlchemy? I believe that Django is more rigorous in it's approach to handling routes and would require less developer effort to add, modify, or remove features. It is heavier, but I believe that it is more stable when used correctly. Django also provides many automatic handling of sessions (redirection to login, automatic error responses, ...) and it's rest_framework extension is just as simple and robust as anything else.
I'm a bit confused. You wrote one patch and you want to rewrite the whole > thing > now? I've seen this at least three times before with more or less fully > developed rewrites. They all failed. They were all written in Python > coincidentally. No. The patch was merely something that I wanted to help resolve before presenting any kind of proposal like this. It was brought up as an outstanding issue or possible patch to finish up for the RPC protocol. I only wanted to help finish the patch to help out (and I also thought provides would be quite useful). Additionally, I would like to apologize for the fact that the proposal is not as well written as it could be. On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:08 PM Loui Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat 16 Feb 2019 17:21 -0800, Kevin Morris wrote: > > The following is a proposal for a Django-hosted aurweb application. It is > > meant to be a drop-in replacement for aur.archlinux.org; effectively > > cloning its user interface and capabilities into a Python Django > extension. > > > > Following https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/1000/, I would like to > put > > together a new aurweb. > > I'm a bit confused. You wrote one patch and you want to rewrite the whole > thing > now? I've seen this at least three times before with more or less fully > developed rewrites. They all failed. They were all written in Python > coincidentally. > > > The current revamped version of archweb runs inside of a django server > as a > > django extension (or app). I would like to do this same thing for > `aurweb`. > > The new django `aurweb` shall support all of the current v1-6 > capabilities > > that aurweb provides, as well as the front-end user website located at > > https://aur.archlinux.org. > > archweb was already written in python for django more than 10 yrs ago. > I guess it may not have been an extension (or app), whatever that is. > I imagine the porting/migration if any would have been much more trivial > than > a full rewrite. > > > It shall be an exact clone from the user's perspective. > > This is a very uncompelling reason to rewrite the whole thing. > > > The major differences between maintaining a PHP vs Django server would be > > that the Django server would be: > > Users don't care about any of your six bullet points. > > > I would like to hear your thoughts on this. If approved, I would love to > > begin this project within the next few weeks. > > Begin the project now and don't make it the same. Make it better. > Nobody is gonna approve vaporware. > Steal users from the AUR. > Convince people your system really is better. > Good luck. > > -- Kevin Morris Software Developer Business Inquiries: [email protected] Personal Inquiries: [email protected] Personal Phone: (415) 571-0513 Technologies: C++, Python, Django, Ruby, Rails, ReactJS, jQuery, Javascript, SQL, Redux
