Yet another comparison of Python Web Frameworks

[Michele Simionato]

On Oct 7, 11:31 am, Istvan Albert <istvan.alb... at gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO this is not as much a framework comparison rather than an
> evaluation of the individual components that make up Pylons.

More in general let's say that I am interested in the evaluation
of WSGI-compatible components.

> The framework is the sum of all its parts. Programmers should not need
> to know that that a package named Beaker is used for sessions, Routes
> for url mapping, PasteDeploy for whatever. This is the weakness of all
> glue-type frameworks i.e. TG and Pylons. It makes them look like they
> are duct-taped together.

Here we disagree: I think that a programmer should know what he
is using. Moreover I think that composability is good since you
can understand the components one at the time and replace one
component with another according to your needs. OTOH, it is
true that duct-taped framework have some weak points, I am
the first to recognize that. But I also think the issues
will be less and less relevant as time goes by and the
culture of composable frameworks will become more widespread
in the community.

> The more important question are whether the sessions actually work
> properly: i.e does session data persist through a server restart?
> Where is the session data stored: in memory, files, database and so
> on.

Of course Beaker has all these features and I have no reasons
to believe they will not work.

> The choice of templating language should be a non issue. Any half
> decent framework should allow you to use any other templating engine
> with ease.
> ... even python as you seem to prefer
>

Yes, the choice of templating language is a non-issue. Maybe
I should have removed my considerations on the subject in
my essay, just to avoid the bikeshed effect.

           Michele Simionato