> Todd Grimason wrote:
...i'm coming to
the conclusion that what's lacking most on any of the number of
existing, good frameworks is just "spit & polish".
In other words, good docs, good tutorials, sample applications (beyond
10-liners), and yes, as much as many coders seem to distain it,
good-loo
Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
When I came to IronPort, I had to act as such a benevolent dictator,
or rather, a benevolent concensus builder...Note, I'm not trying to force
Aquarium on *anybody*. I wrote it because I needed it. I open
sourced it because I like sharing.
To add to JJ's background on A
Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
At the risk of offending you guys with my continual blabbering, I do
like the "tools not policy" approach shared by the FreeBSD and Mason
worlds.
This is exactly what I see WSGI accomplishing. It's too lame of an
interface to be anyone's policy (in a good way, of cour
I think we're violently agreeing.
-jj
On 4/29/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:05 PM 4/29/05 -0700, Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
> >At the risk of showing my ignorance concerning
> >WSGI, it's easier to use a session library in Perl than a session
> >library in WSGI, because th
At 01:05 PM 4/29/05 -0700, Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
At the risk of showing my ignorance concerning
WSGI, it's easier to use a session library in Perl than a session
library in WSGI, because the session library has no knowledge of
anything in your application, not even a context object.
I don't un
* Shannon -jj Behrens [2005-04-29 15:55]:
> Is it just me or does the Python Web application framework world seem
> about as obstinate a problem as the Palestinian mess? ;)
ack! no real world problems please. i might be the only one here who
hasn't written my own framework, but as a sample custo
At the risk of offending you guys with my continual blabbering, I do
like the "tools not policy" approach shared by the FreeBSD and Mason
worlds. For instance, the Apache project has nice session libraries
for Perl. Everyone wrote their own plugins for the common API. Since
the library is a tool
When I came to IronPort, I had to act as such a benevolent dictator,
or rather, a benevolent concensus builder. I worked with Sam Rushing,
of Medusa fame; Paul Clegg who worked on ClearSilver; Eric Huss who
had his own templating language (what good Python programmer
doesn't!); my boss who was fro
At the last Bay Piggies meeting, as well as at PyCon, Guido felt
strongly that no Python Web application framework belonged in the
Python standard library for these reasons:
o The release schedule for such a library doesn't match the release
schedule of Python. Imagine having to wait a year befor
On 4/29/05, Greg Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Greg Wilson wrote:
> >>I think Ian Bicking or Michelle Levesque would be good choices for the
> >>role...
>
> > mike bayer wrote:
> > Michelle is currently a computer science undergrad at the university of
> > Toronto. Are you saying all the
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There are a ton of non-core XML frameworks around for Python, enjoying
considerate popularity. The python 'xml' package is not the "one true
way" to do XML with Python, and certainly doesn't enjoy anything near
the popularity and buzz of Ruby on Rails, say. I don't see why
Greg Wilson wrote:
> Jeremy Hylton wrote:
I don't think a large web programming toolkit belongs in the Python
distribution. If anything, go the other way around and package a
particular version of Python with this web toolkit.
Sure, both models have been successful in the past: PIL and Numeric a
Hi Jeremy; thanks for your post.
> Jeremy Hylton wrote:
I don't think this is a good idea for several reasons. Let's imagine
we could go back in time four years and tell the Ruby community the
same thing: Appoint someone to research a popular new way of building
web applications and add that to t
Uh, just to clarify this was me, not mike, I forgot to kill that
attribution line!
* Todd Grimason [2005-04-29 12:02]:
> * mike bayer [2005-04-29 11:57]:
>
> Just to emerge from lurking for a moment, and without years of working
> in the python community like you guys, it seems pretty obvious to
Oops. Slight clarification:
On 4/29/05, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm also skeptical of a plan that sets out to build the one right way
> that everyone will use. I don't know anything about the history of
> Rails, but I'm guessing that the project didn't start because Matz
> sai
On 4/28/05, Greg Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My solution is for Guido (or someone with equivalent authority)
> to appoint someone "Benevolent Dictator for the Web for One Year", with
> a mandate to put together something that has all the features that are
> getting Rails so much attention.
* mike bayer [2005-04-29 11:57]:
Just to emerge from lurking for a moment, and without years of working
in the python community like you guys, it seems pretty obvious to me
that such a solution (a "dictated" web app approach) would never happen.
>From what I've read of Guido's this seems completel
ok, well its not fair to say im putting words in your mouth. I am
obviously re-stating them, in the way they are striking me as what result
they would ultimately indicate, which is the part that is my opinion:
your words:
"with a mandate to put together something that has all the features that a
> mike bayer wrote:
> [...]
Also, lets think about what the role really means: we must choose someone
to oversee the development of a ripoff of some other language's web
platform and establish it as the "one true way to develop web applications
in Python"
Greg Wilson writes:
Mike, as I said in my
I am also opposed to the role as a whole. Guido created Python,
established himself as the obvious controller of its direction, and then
because he was really good at it, the developers came and it became
popular. All of us, by choosing to be Python developers, have indivdually
chosen to be part
>>Greg Wilson wrote:
I think Ian Bicking or Michelle Levesque would be good choices for the
role...
mike bayer wrote:
Michelle is currently a computer science undergrad at the university of
Toronto. Are you saying all the people with many years of real-world
experience building dynamic web applic
> I think Ian Bicking or Michelle Levesque would be good choices for the
> role: they know the field, and they're not emotionally committed to any
> of the existing frameworks.
Michelle is currently a computer science undergrad at the university of
Toronto. Are you saying all the people with ma
> Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
Dear Greg,
I've read your email. What's your solution?
Best Regards,
-jj
Hi JJ. My solution is for Guido (or someone with equivalent authority)
to appoint someone "Benevolent Dictator for the Web for One Year", with
a mandate to put together something that has all t
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Ian Bicking wrote:
[snip]
FWIW, I strongly suggested to Adrian that he call his project a CMS,
not a web framework. Sure, it is also a web framework, but who cares
about another one of those? It's interesting because it's a CMS, and
it fills a niche that isn't well fill
Greg Wilson wrote:
> > Greg Wilson wrote:
> Well, here we all are, two weeks later...
> Ian Bicking:
> [Subway on Paste]
> [Quixote on Paste]
> [Adrian Holovaty's stuff on Paste]
There's an old Chinese proverb (well, I was told it's Chinese): "If a
hundred sages each tell you something diff
Ian Bicking wrote:
[snip]
FWIW, I strongly suggested to Adrian that he call his project a CMS, not
a web framework. Sure, it is also a web framework, but who cares about
another one of those? It's interesting because it's a CMS, and it fills
a niche that isn't well filled right now.
Could yo
Ian,
One of the things I've been experimenting with in Paste is fully
doctested tutorials. I'm optimistic about it
I like what you have been doing with this. Looks a really good use of
doctest
But anyway, if documentation can be
cumulative instead of temporary it makes a huge difference, and te
Titus,
Anyway, doomsday thoughts aside: we don't need new frameworks, or even
new amalgamations of existing projects. I think we need to make the
existing frameworks easier to use. Python Paste and WSGI in general
will help with this by standardizing deployment, but we need more and
better docume
Titus Brown wrote:
Anyway, doomsday thoughts aside: we don't need new frameworks, or even
new amalgamations of existing projects. I think we need to make the
existing frameworks easier to use. Python Paste and WSGI in general
will help with this by standardizing deployment, but we need more and
b
Greg Wilson wrote:
> > Greg Wilson wrote:
> Well, here we all are, two weeks later...
> Ian Bicking:
> [Subway on Paste]
> [Quixote on Paste]
> [Adrian Holovaty's stuff on Paste]
There's an old Chinese proverb (well, I was told it's Chinese): "If a
hundred sages each tell you something differe
-> > Martijn Faassen:
-> > One can hardly expect people to drop the frameworks they've invested a
-> > lot in and all converge upon another one. You can't even expect Python
-> > programmers to actually stop creating new frameworks.
->
-> Expect? No. Ask? Yes. Believe that if they don't, they'l
> > Greg Wilson wrote:
> Well, here we all are, two weeks later...
> Ian Bicking:
> [Subway on Paste]
> [Quixote on Paste]
> [Adrian Holovaty's stuff on Paste]
There's an old Chinese proverb (well, I was told it's Chinese): "If a
hundred sages each tell you something different, the odds are that
t
Greg Wilson wrote:
Well, here we all are, two weeks later, with no sign of convergence on a
solution.
I'm not sure whether a 'solution' is possible. Nathan Torkington's rave
is typical hype in my mind. Hyping some other system might help, but I
don't think the web-sig can organize such a thing.
Greg Wilson wrote:
Well, here we all are, two weeks later, with no sign of convergence on a
solution.
Well, Peter Hunt has code to run Subway on Paste, and is planning for
the next release to be based on Paste. That will also make CherryPy
available in Paste as a side effect. Mike Orr has be
Well, here we all are, two weeks later, with no sign of convergence on a
solution. The mailing list set up in the wake of Michelle Levesque's
"PyWebOff" talk at PyCon seems to have gone quiet; meanwhile, even
Nathan Torkington (of Perl Cookbook fame) is raving about Rails:
Ruby on Rails is
Paul Boddie wrote:
I've sighed a few times the last months when I ran into more and more
Python-based schema and form frameworks. I developed Formulator for Zope
2 pretty early on, and was involved in 2002 in setting up Zope 3's
schema framework, so I've contributed to the problem. In the Zope worl
Paul Boddie wrote:
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 17:53, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
For what it's worth, I've also developed some schema and form frameworks. ;-)
I think the reason for the re-invention, also in the Web frameworks arena, is
that people look at the design decisions and think, "That's
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 17:53, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
> This sounds good. I think it would be good if Python web frameworks
> turned more into users of a cloud of focused, smaller, libraries and
> mini-frameworks.
That would be great!
> I've sighed a few times the last months when I ran into m
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I've sighed a few times the last months when I ran into more and more
Python-based schema and form frameworks. I developed Formulator for Zope
2 pretty early on, and was involved in 2002 in setting up Zope 3's
schema framework, so I've contributed to the problem. In the Zo
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 05:31:59PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
How would you deal with the flexibility requirements that these systems
have, though?
I have no idea what these requirements are.
Someone builds some web app or framework/app, for instance, a CMS.
Now someone
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 05:31:59PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> How would you deal with the flexibility requirements that these systems
> have, though?
I have no idea what these requirements are. However, I do think that,
if your implementation requires infrastructure that builds a whole new
Greg Wilson wrote:
> Paul Boddie wrote:
...I firmly believe in "unbundling" templating languages from frameworks.
But doesn't that just make more work for the poor sods who are trying to
build things? After all, they have to rebundle them, don't they?
I think there's a difference between mainta
Hey,
Paul Boddie wrote:
[snip]
What I'm advocating is this:
* That the community provides narrow/thin but *completely
separate* components/solutions which offer very well-defined
benefits - eg. Web APIs, templating systems, database access
layers. These things shouldn't be mixed up in
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:01:41PM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
If you spell it wrong, you either
get a broken web application with no useful traceback, or else a
monstously hideous traceback that's almost entirely useless.
This is also part of why I've never been able to ge
Anthony Baxter wrote:
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 23:05, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Buggy? I don't think ZCML is buggy. Where's that coming from?
I wouldn't say ZCML is *buggy* as such, but it _is_ an utter pain
in the arse to debug and get right. If you spell it wrong, you either
get a broken web appli
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:01:41PM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> If you spell it wrong, you either
> get a broken web application with no useful traceback, or else a
> monstously hideous traceback that's almost entirely useless.
This is also part of why I've never been able to get anywhere with
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 23:05, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Buggy? I don't think ZCML is buggy. Where's that coming from?
I wouldn't say ZCML is *buggy* as such, but it _is_ an utter pain
in the arse to debug and get right. If you spell it wrong, you either
get a broken web application with no usef
On Apr 17, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Brendan O'Connor wrote:
Let me put it this way: I've spent weeks and weeks researching many
many python frameworks, but never found one that seemed proven in
terms of adoption by a large number of high-traffic sites.
one could say the same thing about Rails.
And since
On Sunday 17 April 2005 19:18, Brendan O'Connor wrote:
>
> Let me put it this way: I've spent weeks and weeks researching many
> many python frameworks, but never found one that seemed proven in
> terms of adoption by a large number of high-traffic sites.
Plone seems pretty widespread - one only n
> > Amen. I don't mean to slam the work of any web framework developers,
> > but you can't overestimate how much it helps just-beginning web
> > developers to see a unified framework, or at least a good website that
> > directs them to one particular way to do things.
>
> this is what i dont under
On Apr 15, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Brendan O'Connor wrote:
Amen. I don't mean to slam the work of any web framework developers,
but you can't overestimate how much it helps just-beginning web
developers to see a unified framework, or at least a good website that
directs them to one particular way to
Amen. I don't mean to slam the work of any web framework
developers, but you can't overestimate how much it helps just-beginning
web developers to see a unified framework, or at least a good website
that directs them to one particular way to do things. The python
frameworks are all too small to s
I'm sorry--I can't resist! :)
On 4/15/05, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We could discuss what lightweight means,
I installed Aquarium and Glass (Aquarium's optional included Web
server built on SimpleHTTPServer) on my PocketPC the other day :) I'd
like to consider that lightweight!
Greg,
> Paul Boddie wrote:
...I firmly believe in "unbundling" templating languages from frameworks.
But doesn't that just make more work for the poor sods who are trying to
build things? After all, they have to rebundle them, don't they?
Loose coupling between all the components of an applicat
Greg,
> a buddy of mine down in the States was switching
> to Ruby, after using Python for two years, because he and his
> colleagues needed a lightweight, ready-out-of-the-box web app
> framework
We could discuss what lightweight means, I guess, but IMO there is a
light-weight, pure-Python, read
On Apr 15, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 22:31, Blake Winton wrote:
I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, although I guess I would
find the WSGI idioms around accessing request headers/form-encoded
data and collecting response information a bit cumbersome compared
to t
On Friday 15 April 2005 22:31, Blake Winton wrote:
>
> > I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, although I guess I would
> > find the WSGI idioms around accessing request headers/form-encoded
> > data and collecting response information a bit cumbersome compared
> > to the APIs provided by Webstack,
> Ideally, for a significant class of frameworks it would be nice if they
> could all be interfaced in the same way. I.e., you pass in a namespace,
> and maybe a "template space" as well, when templates look up up other
> templates (as with ZPT macros, standard headers/footers in other other
> lan
> Reading over this a little more, I think I might just have a completely
> wrong idea of what WSGI is, and where it's applicable, but having said
> that, given the plethora of frameworks out there, having something that
> webapp developers can code to to allow them to run unchanged on a few
> diff
On Friday 15 April 2005 22:17, Ian Bicking wrote:
>
> In a way, I think this is up to the framework -- frameworks tend to have
> opinions or policy on how files and code is layed out. Templates have
> opinions on how site look is separate from the layout of individual
> pages, and stuff like that.
> >> I'd personally love to see a common set of request/response/session
> >> objects (a la Paul's webstack) be adopted.
> > Isn't that what WSGI offers?
> Perhaps I need to look closer but my assumption after a pass through
> the PIP a while ago was that it was more of standard way of
> getting
Ryan Tomayko wrote:
We're experiencing this problem with Kid, which is framework neutral.
I'm finding that the amount of glue code needed for most frameworks is
more than I expected.
The other issue I'm having with is that it's really hard to provide
anything but really simple template examples
Ryan Tomayko wrote:
On Apr 15, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Blake Winton wrote:
I'd personally love to see a common set of request/response/session
objects (a la Paul's webstack) be adopted.
Isn't that what WSGI offers?
Perhaps I need to look closer but my assumption after a pass through the
PIP a while ago
On Apr 15, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Blake Winton wrote:
I'd personally love to see a common set of request/response/session
objects (a la Paul's webstack) be adopted.
Isn't that what WSGI offers?
Perhaps I need to look closer but my assumption after a pass through
the PIP a while ago was that it was more
mike bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm all for WSGI being as much of a "standard" as we should be embracing.
> But the Python community is a lot more varied than the Ruby one; people
> are thinking way out in their own boxes and have their preferred way of
> doing things (i.e. like people w
On Friday 15 April 2005 20:45, mike bayer wrote:
> > > Paul Boddie wrote:
> >>
> >> ...I firmly believe in "unbundling" templating languages from
> >> frameworks.
> >
> > But doesn't that just make more work for the poor sods who are trying to
> > build things? After all, they have to rebundle th
On Apr 15, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
Greg Wilson wrote:
> Paul Boddie wrote:
...I firmly believe in "unbundling" templating languages from
frameworks.
But doesn't that just make more work for the poor sods who are trying
to build things? After all, they have to rebundle them, don't t
Greg Wilson wrote:
> Paul Boddie wrote:
...I firmly believe in "unbundling" templating languages from frameworks.
But doesn't that just make more work for the poor sods who are trying to
build things? After all, they have to rebundle them, don't they?
I don't think it's too bad. I'm happy with
> > Paul Boddie wrote:
>> ...I firmly believe in "unbundling" templating languages from
>> frameworks.
>
> But doesn't that just make more work for the poor sods who are trying to
> build things? After all, they have to rebundle them, don't they?
theres a tradeoff of initial setup vs. user choic
> Paul Boddie wrote:
...I firmly believe in "unbundling" templating languages from frameworks.
But doesn't that just make more work for the poor sods who are trying to
build things? After all, they have to rebundle them, don't they?
Greg
___
Web-SIG ma
For some reason, I'm now picturing you wearing long black robes and
carrying a scythe. :)
Ah... another Pratchett fan :-)
___
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIG@python.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailma
Ian Bicking wrote:
Well, I'm not sure I agree with the rest of these criticisms either, but
since you quoted me here I'll counter you on this one...
It occurs to me that I probably sound a little pissed off in this email,
which really isn't the case. I don't mind the criticism, but I also
(pers
Greg Wilson wrote:
It's been a week now since my "Just lost another one to Rails" post,
in which I said that a buddy of mine down in the States was switching
to Ruby, after using Python for two years, because he and his
colleagues needed a lightweight, ready-out-of-the-box web app
framework. Respo
On Apr 15, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Greg Wilson wrote:
It's been a week now since my "Just lost another one to Rails" post,
in which I said that a buddy of mine down in the States was switching
to Ruby, after using Python for two years, because he and his
colleagues needed a lightweight, ready-out-of-the-
mike bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I think the term "framework" is becoming a little vague as well.
>there is the notion of "framework" as, the entire front-to-back
>approach to serve HTTP requests via Python, then there is the
>architectural approach that is used on top of an existing web AP
> - "I agree completely, that's why I'm adding yet another framework to
>the mix!" (I'm waiting for someone to stand up at PyCon and say,
>"Web App People's Front? We're the People's Front of Web Apps!")
I think the term "framework" is becoming a little vague as well. there is
the notio
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08:16:34AM -0400, Greg Wilson wrote:
> So, any bets we'll still be moaning about this after PyCon'06?
For some reason, I'm now picturing you wearing long black robes and
carrying a scythe. :)
--amk
___
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-
It's been a week now since my "Just lost another one to Rails" post,
in which I said that a buddy of mine down in the States was switching
to Ruby, after using Python for two years, because he and his
colleagues needed a lightweight, ready-out-of-the-box web app
framework. Responses so far seem to
> Buggy? I don't think ZCML is buggy. Where's that coming from?
Sorry, didn't mean to knock ZCML specifically. I meant to say that
use of XML is inherently buggy when people have to edit it with a text
editor, because of the bad syntax. I have the same gripe with the XUL
used by Firefox. Nothin
Bill Janssen wrote:
The minimal Zope 3 code is a page template and a few lines of ZCML in a
Python package with an empty __init__.py to hook up a new view to an
existing object (say, a folder). There's no Python code *at all*
From my point of view, that's the problem. I don't want to write in
s
Hey,
Not much debate from me here on this front, just a lot of agreement.
Ian Bicking wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[...]
One issue seems to be that Python programmers are automatically
allergic to domain specific glue languages like ZCML, especially when
they look like XML. I think this attitude
On Apr 12, 2005 4:15 PM, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think monkey-level means you start with the most obvious thing that
> people understand. I *think* that is HTML, and imperative form- and
> link-based interaction (though it could be argued that for different
> audiences this isn'
> The minimal Zope 3 code is a page template and a few lines of ZCML in a
> Python package with an empty __init__.py to hook up a new view to an
> existing object (say, a folder). There's no Python code *at all*
>From my point of view, that's the problem. I don't want to write in
some cumbersom
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[...]
It's obvious from this that Zope 3 doesn't seem to be accessible to
Python programmers as it's supposed to be. I think that's only minimally
a technical issue, largely a documentation and presentation issue, and
in part I think a historical baggage issue.
One issue
Peter Hunt wrote:
> In writing a Zope 3 application, for example, one must design objects
> that fit the Zope interface requirements, write a couple of XML
> configuration files to document the object, and figure out the entire
> API all at once.
The requirements for a mimimal Zope 3 application ar
my own project, Myghty, is modeled after Perl's HTML::Mason, which in
turn is a lot like PHP with regards to "just plug it in and start
writing pages". it does foster a more compentized design than PHP and
also integrates nicely into whatever MVC framework the developer
chooses. Myghty a
Ruby on Rails, ColdFusion, ASP.NET,
and to a lesser degree PHP and ASP share two important traits that no
Python web framework currently embraces.
First, when one writes an application
for these frameworks, one spends the vast majority of time writing
code for their application, writing the
87 matches
Mail list logo
