On 2011-1-17 20:23, Mike Orr wrote:
So, for those who've used them, is this true? Are they equivalent to FormEncode, or are they missing any of FormEncode's functionality?
I have used formencode a lot in a Pylons 0.x context, and I've used a lot of formish in repoze.bfg/Pyramid contexts. I have not used Deform so far, so I can't comment on that.
From my perspective formish felt like an improvement over FormEncode: it has sane abstractions of schema definition, validation and form rendering, which is an area where FormEncode always felt unclean to me. Personally I never used html generation for forms, and formish was a lot friendlier to support that than FormEncode was to me. I also had the feeling FormEncode was no longer maintained: bugreports did not get answers and patches were never applied.
Having said that I am not quite happy with formish either, especially its handling of error messages which breaks i18n very badly. The formish developers also have been lacking time to respond to problems and continue its development recently, which makes me worry.
Deform seems like a nicer and better maintained version of formish, so I'm tempted to try it for a next project. The only thing that irks me about it is the way it does marshalling of fields as implemented by colander. I've once promised Chris I would try a simpler and possibly less capable alternative for that, but so far have not had the time to do that.
Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wich...@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-devel?hl=en.
