[pydotorg-www] web frameworks page feedback

[Alan Evangelista]

On 12/20/2014 09:14 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I noticed a recent change to the
> https://wiki.python.org/moin/WebFrameworks that moved Grok (I
> framework I helped found) down from the popular frameworks. I agree
> with that move; it's not been popular for a while now and was never as
> popular as, say, Pyramid or Flask are now.

I was the one responsible for that change.

> * Frameworks that I consider are big and get a lot of attention such
> as Flask and Pyramid do not come under any "popular" heading. But they
> are very popular, and right now they're ranked with obscure things
> like BlueBream or Aquarium. I don't think this reflects the state of
> the Python community. If you're going to do popularity stuff at all,
> why not list some of the popular non-full stack frameworks?

+1. I have mentioned before this here in this mailing list. I'll create 
a "popular" subsection
for the non-full-stack frameworks.


> * Why are some frameworks in a table format (which gives them more
> attention, I think) and some not? I can see doing so for popular
> frameworks, but why do it for some other full stack frameworks and
> some not?

+1. imho everything could be in table format, just need someone to do it.

Also, I'd keep only summary and last version number/release date and
a link to frameworks features comparison in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks#Python_2 
.
imho comparing some well-defined criteria such as activity/size of open 
source community
and list of features is the best way to compare web frameworks, 
otherwise the discussion
is subjective.


> * A framework like wheezy.web is considered "full stack" and is
> highlighted in a table as such. I appreciate wheezy.web, but I really
> think this is unfair to frameworks like Pyramid and Flask, which offer
> more or less the same facilities. You can argue they offer some of
> them through extensions, but so does wheezy.web. If you're going to
> say wheezy.web is full stack, then so are Pyramid and Flask.

I agree wheezy.web should be moved to non-full-stack framework section.

imho a full-stack framework should have:
- WSGI support
- HTTP request parsing
- HTTP response generation helpers
- form, cookies and sessions handling
- URL routing
- separation of UI and application logic code (usually MVC support)
- templating
- caching
- persistent data access
- authentication and authorization
- security helpers
- internationalization
- management of static files (static from the perspective of the server).

Most web frameworks rely on an external popular ORM to handle persistent 
data access
(most often SQLAlchemy) and thus are not full-stack frameworks.

imho we should either (1) have a clear definition of what a full-stack 
framework is
in the wiki and reorganize the lists to follow that or (2) remove the 
distinction
between full-stack and non-full-stack frameworks and simply point to a 
features comparison
list.


Regards,
Alan Evangelista