On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:56:11 PM UTC-4, Chris McDonough wrote: > > > Right, it's just not maintained. If someone wants to maintain it, > they're free to pick it up. I wrote the original bindings but I > can't/won't maintain it anymore. The Beaker code itself has no current > maintainer, and I personally won't maintain bindings to something that > has no current maintainer. If someone else wants to do that, they can; > they'll also then become defacto Beaker maintainer, AFAICT. >
Beaker is a mess. If anyone were to maintain, it would be migrating the caching-only to dogpile and using pyramid's cookie functionality for everything else. I looked into it, but it was too much work for a "useful" thing. If it were "necessary", that's a different story. This is what I use when I need server-side sessions. As far as I can > tell, the only folks for whom the Redis-only-backendedness might be a > problem are folks that run servers on Windows. > We're Mac and Linux; it's a problem for us. We only "rely" on redis in production; not staging or dev (sometimes present for messaging, sometimes not). beaker lets us use file-based sessions on our dev systems. I'm okay with using different backend datastores in each environment, but I don't like the idea of different sessioning systems in each one. Doing stuff like that has caused too many issues when trying to pinpoint a bug in the past. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
