[python-uk] Turbogears

Doug Bromley doug.bromley at gmail.com
Thu Jan 26 13:46:38 CET 2006

Oh dear.  I've been investing lots of time recently in Rails.  Now I
find out TG is just as good and its in the language I know.
On 1/26/06, Doug Winter <doug at isotoma.com> wrote:
> Peter Bengtsson wrote:
> > I've read your blog and your replies here with great interest.
> > The points you make about understanding and progress are very interesting.
> > No wonder [some] people think Zope sucks because Acquisition is so
> > difficult to grok; but now after having understood its power I feel
> > this is one of Zope's best feature. The reason I didn't give up was
> > because I had a friend whom I trusted that I persist. If it wasn't for
> > him I would probably have avoided zope quite early.
> Hi Peter - I knew someone would defend Zope, should have guessed it
> would be you :)
> I don't think difficulty of grokking is the problem with Acquisition
> really.  I think it's a good attempt at solving a real problem that
> ultimately creates more problems than it solves.  The problem
> acquisition tries to solve is a real issue - how do you provide
> "context" in a web application?
> Zope satisfies these requirements using Acquisition.  My problem with it
> is that it is too promiscuous - your namespace ends up massively
> polluted, leading to name collision between multiple products.
> I spend a lot of my time working with Zope and this leads to real issues
> - only yesterday I had two products that had coincidentally named a
> method the same (one as a method one as a PythonScript) leading to
> bizarre failures when one acquired the other's version of the method.
> Ultimately I think Acquisition is a Glorious Failure - it was a brave
> attempt to solve a difficult problem, but it just doesn't scale.  Zope
> Corp have realised this, and Zope 3 is fundamentally different, using
> Adaptation instead of Acquisition to provide a mechanism for object
> location.
> > I'm wondering Doug, what's your take on zope3 vs. TG?
> Zope 3 looks very good - they've fundamentally addressed the core
> architectural problems in Zope 2.  I seriously dislike the XML
> configuration files, which might seem like a minor point but it really
> gets on my nerves.
> Zope 3 has a head start on the other frameworks like TG, in that there
> is a large body of existing code (such as CMF) which can be ported to it
> from Zope 2.  Lots of that code is very crufty and horrible though, so
> how much of an advantage that is depends a lot on the extent of any
> rewriting that goes on I guess.
> TG is going to be using RuleDispatch instead of Adaptation, which is
> going to be really interesting.  I have no idea how well that's going to
> pan out in actual use.
> There have been a lot of complaints about the diversity of web solutions
> for Python, as opposed to Ruby where there is just the one, as if
> somehow it was a bad thing.  It may be confusing for newcomers, but I
> can't honestly believe that the genetic diversity of solutions, all able
> to take the best of each other's ideas, can be anything other than a
> very good thing.
> Cheers,
> Doug.
> --
> doug at isotoma.com   / Isotoma, Open Source Software Consulting
> Tel: 020 7620 1446 / Mobile: 07879 423002 / Fax: 020 79006980
> Skype: dougwinter  / http://www.isotoma.com
> Lincoln House, 75 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7HS
> _______________________________________________
> python-uk mailing list
> python-uk at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

Wisdom is the reward you get for a lifetime of listening when you'd
have preferred to talk.

More information about the python-uk mailing list