On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 16:56 -0600, Tim Black wrote: > On 11/09/2010 04:21 PM, Mike Orr wrote: > > I think Ben has his heart set on the name Pyramid for the > > Pylons-level framework, and is already making website design and > > marking plans based on that. So the high-level framework can be called > > TurboGears or something closer to Pyramid, but not Pyramid itself. > > > > However, there have long been requests for a batteries-included form > > of Pylons. We have always referred people to TurboGears for that. But > > with the merger (if TG agrees to join it), a tighter branding may be > > more appropriate, like Pyramid Gears. That way there's an "official" > > high-level framework, clearly integrated and not just stuck onto it > > like a Christmas tree ornament, and then we'll look like a > > full-service organization (good for marketing). But I don't want to > > preclude other high-level frameworks with semi-affiliated status. > > There are too many legitimate alternatives to exclude them, and the > > Python-web landscape would be more unified and interoperable if more > > of the frameworks were built on the Pyramid stack. > > > > "Paste Pyramid" and "WebOb Pyramid" are not really along the same > > lines. Paste and WebOb are low-level utilities, while Pyramid is a > > complete framework. Pyramid : PyramidGears is more like Debian : > > Ubuntu, not GNU : "GNU/Linux" : Debian. > Aha! My obsessive search for the best naming scheme is over: > > Pyramid : TurboPyramid > > That's perfect. It keeps the Pyramid brand, it respects the fact that > TurboGears is the fast way to get started,
But is TurboGears the fast way to get started? I ask this because currently TurboGears doesn't include any OOTB application functionality in its core. It provides a bunch of frameworky bits that someone can glue together if they work hard to make an application. It has some batteries but the batteries are still extremely low-level. However, it's already pretty fast to get started in this same way using plain-Pyramid. What will a nascent TurboPyramid offer above what Pyramid does now? Does TurboGears/TurboPyramid want to be a "best of breed framework" still or does it want to have application components? If it wants to have application components (like an admin UI, perhaps a blogging tool, a user registration system), etc, I'd say "yes, TurboPyramid is a fast way to get started". If not, I think it's just a different way to get started. While having a different way to get started would be fine, and TurboPyramid is not a horrible name for that, it's unlikely I'd personally be helping on that effort unless it puts some "pixels on the screen" in the form of application functionality. - C -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
