On Aug 30, 12:10 am, "Martin Marcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip!] > > My idea was to define "Python Implementation Guidelines" (PIGs) that > specify a problem formalize it enough so that implementations are > interchangeable (in this example create a module that has an > "authenticate(username, password)" method so that one could easily > take that module for any given app and then authenticate against > postgres, and also against my plaintext file (which was the original - > quite useless - implementation). > > Does that sound like a good idea or would that be over formalization? > This may be over-formalization. For specific problems, there generally is a pythonic choice. For instance, suppose your problem is 'I need an ORM' - well the pythonic choice is something along the lines of SQLObject or SQLAlchemy. Then there are other cases where there are too many choices - "I need a web framework." -- turbogears, django, pylons, and whatever else you want to throw into the pot. (Be smart, choose pylons [just kidding, but I did promote pylons and attach a just kidding disclaimer -- clever, huh?]) > Personally I think that would be great as I could search the PIGs at > (hopefully) python.org find out the number and search at koders.com or > code.google.com for python code that has "PIG: XXX" in the metadata > docstring or wherever - maybe even a __pig__ = XXX variable. > I think most of what you're after may be in the python cookbook (http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python) or the PyPi (http:// pypi.python.org/pypi). > any input is welcome (also point me to the place where that can be > found if it already exists) > martin Or maybe I completely misunderstand what you mean. G' Day! jw -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list