On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 05:51:53PM +0000, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:35:21PM -0800, Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> | I don't have any Twisted comments as I haven't used their product.
> 
> They took a different approach.  Their documentation isn't very good,
> especially since they focus on "taps" and other items.  But overall
> their servlet model seems much cleaner.  
> 

  This isn't entirely fair.  TAPs may be completely irrelevant to you, if
you're only developing with Twisted.web, but documentation about them and
all the other features of Twisted doesn't mean Twisted's documentation
"isn't very good" - it just means Twisted does more than you care about.

  I think this is all put in perspective if you see that Twisted is a
network framework first, and a web/app server second.  Webware, from what I
understand, focuses much more on being a web/app server, so of course it
doesn't have documentation about client/server persistence (TAPs), remote
method invocation (spread), client/server protocol implementations, and all
the other features it doesn't provide.

  I mean no slight to Webware, only to point out that Twisted and Webware
aren't aimed at the same target.  Disparaging Twisted's documentation
because it covers *more* than you're interested in just doesn't make a lot
of sense.

  Jp

-- 
A sad spectacle.  If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery 
and folly.  If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space.
                -- Thomas Carlyle, looking at the stars
-- 
 up 17 days, 2:29, 5 users, load average: 0.17, 0.25, 0.26

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to