[Web-SIG] Standardized template API
millerdev at gmail.com
Wed Feb 1 04:14:56 CET 2006
OK Phillip. Time for you to put your money on the line. Give us an interface so WE can shoot YOUR great ideas down for a change :)
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 08:11 PM 1/31/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>> Please, say what is wrong about the spec itself, not what is wrong about
>> the scope of the spec.
> The first things that come to mind are:
> 1. It disadvantages better solutions (whether frameworks or templates) by
> reducing everything to the least common denominator
> 2. It doesn't give templates access to the request or response without
> creating new specifications for how they're to be encoded in vars -- which
> would end up recapitulating the pre-WSGI "common request/response"
> arguments all over again
> 3. Doesn't allow the framework to control the lifetime of compiled resources
> 4. Lack of relationship to HTTP makes it irrelevant/out-of-scope for
> Web-SIG; it should go to a string or text processing SIG.
> 5. Makes Web-SIG do-over a problem that TurboGears and Buffet have already
> solved. (That is, there's already a usable solution for what this does; it
> doesn't need *another* specification; let's use the current focus of
> attention to go after an actual opportunity to *improve*.)
> Problems 1-4 are simple to solve by having resources be WSGI application
> objects. The rest of the standardization could then be reduced to what
> additional environ keys should be supplied by frameworks. And then we
> could get to work on solving the resource deployment problem instead.
> Look-and-feel customizability of reusable web application components is an
> incredibly important problem, on a scale comparable to the problems that
> setuptools and eggs solve, and it's a much bigger issue for
> man-in-the-street use of Python as a web platform than WSGI itself is. My
> wife isn't a programmer, but she's hacked PHP applications to customize
> their look and feel. (Of course, these apps then aren't really upgradeable
> any more, because their code has effectively been branched.)
> A Python standard for resource location would allow us to have tools that
> run against a project and spit out a directory tree with just resources for
> you to edit, and to build eggs of your newly-customized UIs. If this is a
> *standard* for Python web apps, then it means you only learn it
> once. Sure, you'll have to learn the template syntax used by different
> apps or components, but that's not a big deal if you're mainly looking to
> change the HTML anyway. Also, it enables a market for third-party
> customizations: i.e., people creating skins for popular components/apps.
> If we can solve the resource deployment problem in a way that allows
> creating tools that people like my wife can use, we will have succeeded in
> moving the Python web platform forward significantly, in terms of what will
> be available to users, not just developers.
More information about the Web-SIG