+1 I agree.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Marcus Cavanaugh <
marcuscavana...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 10:24 pm, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
> > I would agree that need to start looking towards WSGI 2.0 and Python
> > 3.0 would be a good trigger for that.
>
> +1 on that. If there was ev
On Jan 19, 10:24 pm, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> I would agree that need to start looking towards WSGI 2.0 and Python
> 3.0 would be a good trigger for that.
+1 on that. If there was ever a time to make a move, this is it, where
we have preexisting breaks in backward compatibility anyway.
--~--~--
On Jan 20, 10:31 am, Mike Orr wrote:
> - it may be time to move to a post-WSGI standard a la the "WSGI 2"
> proposals, since we'll have to change WSGI anyway. However,
> politically getting a WSGI update into the Python core is a long slow
> process, so maybe we should just do something under a
awesome news
we're tidying up the Open Social Network framework for its first
public release right now. its built on top of pylons and would do
well from many of these concepts.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:22 PM, MilesTogoe wrote:
> Interesting. I've tried all the python frameworks. I think there are
> really 2 markets - a simple to use framework and a highly optimized
> framework. Can they be the same ? Maybe.
That is one of the ideas, actually. If you imagine each
Mike Orr wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Noah Gift wrote:
>
>
>> Although, this might eventually move to an even more common "United"
>> core that many web frameworks extend off of:
>>
>> http://www.openplans.org/projects/pypefitters/
>>
>
> Well, that requires some explanation,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Noah Gift wrote:
> Although, this might eventually move to an even more common "United"
> core that many web frameworks extend off of:
>
> http://www.openplans.org/projects/pypefitters/
Well, that requires some explanation, Pypefitters is a group of WSGI
framew
