Mike Meyer wrote: > "Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Flexibility is good, but personally I think the problem is that instead > > of useful variety, we have redundant overlap. How many different > > templating systems, sql<-->object mappings, and URL dispatch schemes do > > we need? And what exactly is the difference between them all, except > > for slightly different syntax? > > Well, they come in at least three major variants: complete publishing > system (ake zope), templating system (aka psp), and modules (aka > cgi). Each of these is focused on a different level of the problem, > and hence is suitable for different things.
I see what you mean, but unfortunately I think there is a lot more fuzziness than that. If the separate parts were clearly delineated things would be a lot better. I look to the Database API Specification as a great example of how this could (should?) be done, allowing for easy interchangeability while still providing a well-documented standard, and the opportunity to bundle a basic module with the standard library without raising the difficulty level for those who wish to use other frameworks. A PyWebForm API and a PyWebSession API would be fairly easy to create, for example. Templating maybe less so, but not much. > Syntax can be very important, especially for templating > systems. Typically, those are used in situations where you have a lot > of X/HTML and want a bit of dynamic content. Ideally, you want to be > able to treat this just like a static HTML page. If the syntax of a > templating system makes your standard web tools puke, you probably > want to avoid it. I think templating syntax is very important, but with something like Python I think the future is in modules like HTMLTemplate rather than the ASP/PHP model. When you're working with a valid XML page in the first place, all your tools should work adequately. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
