Being unjust

[Fuzzyman]

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Kay Schluehr wrote:
>
> > I'd be interested in what people think about bundling one of the
> > diverse Python webframeworks with the Python distribution which will be
> > "just there" as like Tcl/Tk+Tkinter for GUI-programming.
>
> if you can find one that's relatively stable, simple enough to enable beginners to
> do simple things with just a little python code, can do simple stuff without needing
> a full-blown DB, and can run as an ordinary CGI if necessary, I'm definitely +1.
>
> (hmm.  maybe "web.py" fits the spec?  but that's more a library than a frame-
> work, of course...)
>

web.py has the great advantage that (allegedly) you can migrate apps
from CGI to FastCGI, mod_python, WSGI.

It hardly counts as stable of course - having just been released. +1 on
including it though ;-)

To be fair, it would be better to incldue a library rather than a
framework in the standard library.

There are a few fundamental "philosophy differences" in web apps which
makes it a bit of a religious war. This means getting something into
the standard library is likely to be the cause of intractable
discussions. *sigh*

I think Ian Bickings approach (ius this WSGI or paste ??) is to develop
a framework that componentizes the elements of web applications. (I
geuss it's a protocol as much as a framework). This means that you're
not locked into design decisions at the start of the game - and
components developed that follow the protocol can be easily re-used in
other projects.

Unfortuantely they (he ?) have made the API a blocking API (WSGI at
least is blocking) - this means it can't be used without threads. So
there is still a fundamental philosophy question here.

Other frameworks like Django and turbogears can't (as easily) share
parts of applications designed for the other framework. It would be
very difficult to jsutify including one over the other to include in
the standard library.

All the best,

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml

> </F>