Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion The Future of TurboGears
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Mark Ramm  
View profile  
 More options Jun 28 2007, 10:15 pm
From: "Mark Ramm" <mark.mchristen...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:15:37 -0400
Local: Thurs, Jun 28 2007 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: [TurboGears] Re: The Future of TurboGears

> Unsure if this is the forum for adding some more thoughts for 2.0...
> but, wanted to indicate that it may be helpful to come up with a
> layered approach to component requirement.

Sure, this is as good a place as any.

> For example, consider the case of deployment of a TG-based app in an
> embedded systems environment. This is a perfect example that demands a
> multi-tiered framework. Not always, do we have the luxury of an
> embedded database.

Well, pylons has a minimal quckstart template equivelent, and an ORM
is not really required for either TG or Pylons.   TG2 isn't going to
require a database connection or configuration to run, or
automatically import the DB for you, those imports will be in code you
control.

So it should be a lot easier to build the minimum set of packages you
need to run, and keep your memory footprint small in TG2 as compared
to the original TurboGears.

And if somebody contributes, and helps to maintain one, I'm sure we'd
be very happy to have a TG Minimal template.

>  A "ezsetup.py  -no_db" or "tg_admin quickstart -no_db" may be a good option to have.

This would be cool, but it might be more of a seprate project on top
of pylons.   The way I see it Pylons will be the uberflexible
framework that you can build all kinds of different web-app-frameworks
on, and TurboGears  will be a particular layer on top of Pylons which
gives you sane defaults, and focuses on creating a compelling
experience for web develoers.   I think you could say that TurboGears
is to Pylons as Ubuntu is to Debian.

> Also, it may be helpful, if there could be a cpl-page doc somewhere
> that could describe (graphically) the role of each of the proposed pieces
> of TG 2.0 - so some of us could understand the architecture/interactions
> a  lot better.

Yea, I'll put that on the To-Do list.   I'm sure it will help a lot of
people to understand what's going on, and it might even encourage
people to get involved with TG2 development.   I will say however that
we've got a LOT going on so this may not happen right away.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.