[Web-SIG] Bowing out (was Re: A trivial template API counter-proposal)
Jim Fulton
jim at zope.com
Tue Feb 7 15:08:53 CET 2006
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you talking about
WSGI? Or the templating effort? I've tuned out the templating discussion.
I think you and others did a fantastic job with WSGI. (Based on my
experience I do think it needs more work in the future, but that's
beside the point.) Despite some skepticism about the templating
effort, I certainly planned to evaluate it when it settled down.
For the record, I am very interested in inclusive specs and
other means to collaborate. Keep up the good work!
I do think that the pioneering work you are doing with setuptools
is far more important for Python, so I'd be happy to see you focus on
that. :)
Jim
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 08:02 PM 2/5/2006 +0000, Alan Kennedy wrote:
>
>>Looking at this in an MVC context, the application is responsible for
>>populating the Model (user namespace), and selecting which View
>>(template<->media-type) is suitable for return to the user. Templates
>>should not vary media types. HTTP headers do need to be set for
>>different templates/media-types. But that should be the responsibility
>>of the HTTP application, not the template, which should be unaware of
>>the application contect in which it is running, except for the contents
>>of the Model/user-namespace.
>
>
> As soon as you start talking about what templates should or should not do
> (as opposed to what they *already* do), you've stopped writing an inclusive
> spec and have wandered off into evangelizing a particular framework philosophy.
>
> OTOH, before I first proposed WSGI in 2003, nobody here seemed especially
> interested in writing inclusive specs anyway, and I rather get the
> impression they still aren't now, my "insistence" (as Ian calls it)
> notwithstanding.
>
> What I've been trying to do with both WSGI and with this spec is to create
> something that deals with the *actual* complexity and diversity of Python
> web frameworks as they exist today, rather than reducing the diversity to
> match whatever the currently popular paradigm is. This wasn't a popular
> approach when I introduced WSGI, either, but in the case of WSGI it was
> easy to point to all the previously-failed attempts at standardizing
> request/response objects due to people not taking backward compatibility
> into account.
>
> At this point it has become clear to me that even if I spent my days and
> nights writing a compelling spec of what I'm proposing and then trying to
> sell it to the Web SIG, it would be at best a 50/50 chance of getting
> through, and in the process it appears that I'd be burning through every
> bit of goodwill I might have previously possessed here. And, although I
> believe that the approach currently being taken to this spec is divisive of
> the community, I have to admit that since my attempts at education about
> the issues hasn't been particularly successful, it would appear that
> continuing to argue about it is no less divisive than what I'm arguing
> against. (For that matter, it's not even clear to me any more that most of
> the people on whose behalf I'm fighting would even realize yet why the
> future I want would be beneficial for them.)
>
> I really expected more people to see the benefits of the WSGI embedding
> approach, though, and although I've gotten a few private mails of support,
> it isn't anywhere near the level I thought it would be. Given the intense
> pressure that some parties are putting on having a spec *right* now, I
> don't feel that I can reasonably deliver a competing spec without
> interfering with my work and personal commitments in the next few
> weeks. Since I've already been using most of my "Python community
> contribution" time in the last week arguing about this, at this point it
> seems the community would be better served by me devoting that time to
> working on setuptools, rather than continuing to fight for a vision that
> hardly anybody else believes in. And, I'd rather save whatever karma I
> have left here for something with a better chance of success.
>
> Good luck with the spec.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web-SIG mailing list
> Web-SIG at python.org
> Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/jim%40zope.com
--
Jim Fulton mailto:jim at zope.com Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
More information about the Web-SIG
mailing list