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
TurboGears
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
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
 
iain duncan  
View profile  
 More options Jun 28 2007, 3:57 pm
From: iain duncan <iaindun...@telus.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:57:53 -0700
Local: Thurs, Jun 28 2007 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: [TurboGears] Re: The Future of TurboGears
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> But you won't have to learn to write Routes yourself -- we have a
> single default route, that will call your root controller, and provide
> the same CherryPy object dispatch functionality that you are used to.
>  You won't have to learn WSGI either, because your controller methods
> will return dictionaries, just like they always have.

That sounds good. I hope there is a plan to port/wrap/emulate the new
CP3 dispatcher options too!

> As for the CherryPy vs Paste page you point to, I agree with some of
> it's comments and not with others.   I don't have time to to write up
> a full response, but I think it's the wrong comparison for us.

Nontheless, I think a page addressing this issue would be a good idea
and would reassure a lot of people who are either new to TG or thinking
of using it and are now wondering whether they will be wasting time
learning the CP way of doing things.

> Pylons offers a nice layer of abstraction on top of paste, and
> TurboGears 2 is going to offer a layer on top of that -- so the fact
> that you don't normally want to mess with all the lower level features
> of Paste yourself should be perfectly fine.   We'll be giving you
> ObjectDispatch, a standard Response Object, turbogears style config
> objects, and all of the conveniences you've grown to know and love.
> It's just that we'll be borrowing Pylons implementation, or building
> our own rather than use CherryPy's.

This is probably a stupid question as I don't know WSGI at all, but will
it possible to emulate CP tools? They look really useful in CP3. Perhaps
part of the end goal should be to provide all the CP convenience
features on top of paster too?

Thanks
Iain


 
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.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google