ANNOUNCE: JOTWeb 1.11, preview of new web application system.

[Sean Reifschneider]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:11:48AM +1000, Dave Cole wrote:
>If you mean developer when you say user then the developer is the
>person designing the layout of the directory tree containing code.py
>so it can be visible to the namespace mechanisms in JOTWeb.  This is
>still building up a namespace.

Ok, sure...  My point being that I think it's too much work in Albatross
to build up the name-space.  I was asked what I didn't like about
Albatross, and that's a large part of it.  I don't like the way the
name-space is built up, at least in the primary examples.

We can get into semantic discussions and say that they're both ways of
building up the name-space, which is to an extent true...  I just am not
that fond of the way that the name-space is set up in Albatross.

>me original point - if you are building an application with more
>functionality than simply poking values into templates then this is a
>minor issue.

It really depends on what sorts of sites you're building.  I would
suspect that most sites have far more simple template pages than they
have complex pages.  I think we're probably going to have to agree to
disagree, though.  I, personally, find the notion of always having to
build up this main code that builds the name-space and render the page
to be similar to manipulating strings in C.  Sure, I can do it, but I
don't want to in most cases...

To me, it's like having to make a program that opens the file and reads
it, in order to have your .html page work with Apache.  Sure, it gives
you more flexibility, but in most cases you just want this thing to
happen.

This seems to me a legacy of Albatross being a CGI, where that CGI is
the main entry point, instead of the HTML being the main entry point.
So, you always have that code there.

>A issue with this (at least in my mind) is that the most obvious use
>of the toolkit has it reaching its tentacles deeper into your
>application.  I can see ways to work around this which means it is not

I don't see that.  In my mind, the JOTWeb approach does some setup and
then hands control off to your presentation and code.  It's like having
Apache calling a CGI.  Apache sets up a bunch of environment values and
changes the directory, etc.  Then it calls into the CGI.

>I firmly believe that for all but the most trivial of applications you
>need to separate the presentation and implementation.  This allows you

Sure, I agree there and think that both Albatross and JOTWeb implement
this separation fairly similarly.

The origin of this thread was "JOTWeb is similar to Albatross, why
didn't you use Albatross?"

>providing the presentation and implementation components.  Whether you
>import your code explicitly, or have it imported for you via JOTWeb
>attributes is no big deal.

It was a big enough deal to me that I decided to try something
different.  That's all it boils down to.  And I very much like the
results...

>But they do need to do something special.  They need to place the code
>into a module so it can be imported by JOTWeb.  When it comes down to

For a Python programmer, putting the code into a module is nothing
special.

>it the only thing that JOTWeb is saving over Albatross is one import
>statement.  I am still maintain that is not a big deal.

According to the example that I created earlier, based on the examples
in the Albatross getting started documentation, it required doing an
import, setting up a function, setting up a context, creating a name in
the context, and then rendering the page.  None of which I can remember
how to do with Albatross.

JOTWeb, on the other hand, requires that you just create a normal Python
module and create a function which returns the current time string.
Something that a Python programmer is going to be hard pressed to
forget...

>If a developer finds the JOTWeb approach a more natural fit for their
>application requirements and development style then that is a win for
>them.  The same goes for Albatross.  I really don't think there is a

You won't get any arguments there from me.  Again, I'm just following up
on what it was about Albatross that made me look elsewhere.

Sean
-- 
 Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, remember, no
 matter where you go, there you are.  -- _Buckaroo_Banzai_
Sean Reifschneider, Member of Technical Staff <jafo at tummy.com>
tummy.com, ltd. - Linux Consulting since 1995.  Qmail, Python, SysAdmin