On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Ben Bangert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 28, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > >> If you decide to use zope.component a controller could be a named >> utility. You could then register it like so: >> >> class BaseController(object): >> """This is the standard Pylons base controller class.""" >> implements(IPylonsController) >> >> >> class MyController(BaseController): >> """My very own controller.""" >> >> registerUtility(MyController, name="my_controller") > > Yikes! :) > > I was trying to only include interfaces enough such that an end user would > never have to see them but they'd be helpful to allow/encourage plug-ins. > The second a Pylons developer has to start knowing interfaces, utilities, > registering things *just* to get the basic app working, Pylons has lost > something I think is very important. I was aiming for any potential use of > the zope stuff purely for use with plug-ins, or changing core aspects of > Pylons that are currently difficult to tweak. > > Though its definitely true that even making a small basic app might involve > an extra step to allow for pluggability.
We are talking about plugins at two different levels, the framework level and the application level. Ben is interested in the framework level; some others are interested in the application level. At this point it would be foolish to exclude either one, because that would just make the framework rigid and lead to Pylons 3.0 down the line. [1] Because the users who want application components are not going to go away, and we will forever be getting questions like "Why doesn't Pylons have plug-in applications like Django does? I'll go write another framework that does." But at the same time we don't want to burden application developers with extra steps if they don't need the component features. [1] Like the transit authority in Seattle, which laid down grade-separated light rail most of the way but put four miles on the surface to save money. Which just means they'll have to come back and elevate it or put it underground later, at more expense than if they'd just done it that way in the first place. -- Mike Orr <[email protected]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
