Re: newbie here ...

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Gavin E. <gavinengelgmail.com> wrote:

>  SO HERE'S MY QUESTION:  Is there any other MVC, in any
language, which
>  divides their MVC into more unique/swap-able pieces
than Pylons?  I
>  see the future of web-based apps based on these
interchangable 3rd
>  party components.

Pylons is just a glue of user-friendliness on top of Paste. 
The only
code native to Pylons is that which does not adequately
exist in
lower-level projects.  I challenge you to find what in
Pylons *could*
be broken up into smaller pirces.

WebOb was recently created as a framework-neutral
request/response
object.  If it becomes widely used outside Pylons, it will
bring
another level of interoperability on top of that which WSGI
provides.

As for a similar product outside Python, not that I've seen.
 Python
has attracted a large number of people who like to tinker
with web
frameworks, and thus has a large number of web frameworks. 
These
framework tinkerers have an allergy against other people's
monolithic
frameworks.  So WSGI was brought in to rectify the
situation.  If we
can't bring the number of frameworks down to one, let's at
least make
them more interoperable.

Perl, Ruby, Java, and PHP went a different route.  A few
people
created a framework in each of those languages, and most
users just
used it rather than writing their own framework.  This has
been
attributed to how easy it is to build a framework in Python.
 If you
look through the Paste docs, it even tells you how to make
your own
personal framework. 

If you're looking for something to do, you might want to
look for
shortcomings in Pylons' component/interoperability model and
suggest
improvements.

-- 
Mike Orr <sluggostergmail.com>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-discussgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
pylons-discuss-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at h
ttp://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I want to start off by saying that I'm a huge python
advocate and that
I've been developing web applications in python for the last
3 years.

I decided to check out Rails a few months ago to see what
the fuss was
about. Although I was turned off by Ruby's syntax I really
liked
Rails. Here's a few things Rails does better than Pylons.

- HTML layouts can be automatically associated at a
controller or
application level. You can do this with Mako or Genshi but
with Rails
it's "out of the box" and very intuitive

- Honestly.. I found Active Record way easier to use than
SQLAlchemy.
You create a very simple mapping file that literally has two
lines in
it and you have a database ORM.

- Rails has partials which are essentially tags. This makes
it very
easy to reuse HTML templates as widgets across your app


If you are a pylons person you owe it to yourself to try out
Rails and
get a sense of another framework. I truly believe that
Pylons can be
improved with a few minor features.


Chad




On Feb 23, 7:48 pm, "Mike Orr" <sluggos...gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Gavin E.
<gavinen...gmail.com> wrote:
> >  SO HERE'S MY QUESTION:  Is there any other MVC,
in any language, which
> >  divides their MVC into more unique/swap-able
pieces than Pylons?  I
> >  see the future of web-based apps based on these
interchangable 3rd
> >  party components.
>
> Pylons is just a glue of user-friendliness on top of
Paste.  The only
> code native to Pylons is that which does not adequately
exist in
> lower-level projects.  I challenge you to find what in
Pylons *could*
> be broken up into smaller pirces.
>
> WebOb was recently created as a framework-neutral
request/response
> object.  If it becomes widely used outside Pylons, it
will bring
> another level of interoperability on top of that which
WSGI provides.
>
> As for a similar product outside Python, not that I've
seen.  Python
> has attracted a large number of people who like to
tinker with web
> frameworks, and thus has a large number of web
frameworks.  These
> framework tinkerers have an allergy against other
people's monolithic
> frameworks.  So WSGI was brought in to rectify the
situation.  If we
> can't bring the number of frameworks down to one, let's
at least make
> them more interoperable.
>
> Perl, Ruby, Java, and PHP went a different route.  A
few people
> created a framework in each of those languages, and
most users just
> used it rather than writing their own framework.  This
has been
> attributed to how easy it is to build a framework in
Python.  If you
> look through the Paste docs, it even tells you how to
make your own
> personal framework. 
>
> If you're looking for something to do, you might want
to look for
> shortcomings in Pylons' component/interoperability
model and suggest
> improvements.
>
> --
> Mike Orr <sluggos...gmail.com>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-discussgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
pylons-discuss-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at h
ttp://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---