Adam Atlas wrote: > On 22 Oct 2007, at 12:09, William Dode wrote: > >> So, don't you think web-sig should officialy support such library ? >> Include it in the lib stantard or in a wsgiorg library ? >> > > I don't really like the idea of having something like this be part of > the standard library; it's sort of neither here nor there between low- > level WSGI and framework territory. I don't see people using > something like WebOb to write their applications directly (nor does > that seem to be the intention); just like Paste, it seems more like > something that full frameworks would incorporate and provide access to.
I am certainly not representative of a normal developer, but I have been using it quite successfully without any framework. It also provides most of the functionality of WebTest, a framework-neutral functional testing tool, as another example. > Given the principle of "there should be one, and preferably only one, > obvious way to do it", it seems like putting this in the standard > library would be an endorsement of it as the obvious/best way, and > although I like the WebOb approach, I don't think there's enough of a > consensus to bless it thus. For now, the multitude of web frameworks > and their various philosophies is a good thing. After actually reading the APIs of the different request objects and summarizing the differences, I feel much less like this. All the major frameworks (and almost all the minor frameworks) have request and response objects with a subset of the same properties, and some slightly different names. The only really substantial exceptions are Zope and CherryPy that have a bunch of traversal-related properties and methods; but even these have some parallels in WebOb. I've also tried to avoid gratuitous incompatibilities with other frameworks, and to allow backward compatibility through subclassing when there are API differences. There's still some tricky details -- for instance, Django uses a different multi-value dictionary API than WebOb uses. Which is the kind of thing that makes me wish *some* multi-value dictionary API existed in the standard library that could serve as a reasonable model. But so it goes. Even there I switched around WebOb some to be closer to Django (to prefer the last value over the first value, when getting a single value when multiple values are available). As for actual consensus, Pylons is committed to using it and TurboGears by association. Jacob Kaplan-Moss and Simon Willison have expressed specific interest in the idea for Django, though I don't think they've had the time to analyze what that would mean specifically. Jacob Smullyan is also using it as we've heard, and I've heard of some other smaller/internal frameworks using it. That's not consensus, but I think it points to the possibility of consensus. As to the standard library, I don't know, there's a lot of issues with its development model. WebOb, unlike a framework, actually *could* match the kind of slow and steady progress that the standard library has. But the stdlib might be a bad target even so. -- Ian Bicking : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://blog.ianbicking.org : Write code, do good : http://topp.openplans.org/careers _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com