Pythonic way of web-programming

A.M. Kuchling amk at amk.ca
Wed Apr 16 14:06:37 CEST 2003


On 16 Apr 2003 00:16:49 -0500, 
	Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote:
> One option would be to use an interface with adapters, where if say the
> Quixote interface was used, Webware would have an adapter from that
> interface to the Webware HTTP{Request,Response} interface... though I'm
> not sure how interesting request and response object are.  

Perhaps they're not very interesting, but that seems the only level that
could be feasibly standardized.

I'm willing to host a mailing list for web discussion on my DSL-connected
machine.  That might be easier than jumping through the SIG hoops.  If
you're interested, just suggest a name ('web'?) for the list and I'll create
it.  I can't do CVS, but maybe we could just use a sandbox/ directory in the
Python CVS tree.

> I disagree.  Unifying with one model for building applications is not
> likely, but there are a lot of places where the frameworks duplicate
> effort without significant differentiation.  By identifying those we
> could make a more robust, more easily distributed, more compelling
> foundation for web frameworks.  

Yes, but usually those areas of duplication don't actually require a lot of
maintenance effort after the initial implementation.  We're four months into
2003, and Quixote's HTTPRequest and Response haven't had a significant
change yet.  The changes have all been to higher-level things like the
publishing logic.

--amk                                                             (www.amk.ca)
OTHELLO: Put out the light, and then put out the light.
      -- _Othello_, V, ii




More information about the Python-list mailing list