I don't feel it is necessary to re-write anything yet. There is a lot of good in it as it is. Don't just give up on it when you run into a few difficulties. We are not talking about anything that won't be addressed either. It is more of an issue of how it is addressed, and for all the "weaknesses" in this framework, there are a hell of a lot more strengths.
Have patience, and don't forget this is a VERY young project. Also, you may not agree with all the decisions all the time, but then no one will in any framework. You can't please all the people all the time. The key is to remember what brought you to this framework, and if that still stands. All software has weaknesses, the question is whether it is being dealt with or monitored. If it is, then one day in the near future it will be addressed, but don't confuse speed of resolving all problems brought up with quality solutions. Often the best solution will require a lot of dialogue and a lot of analysis before implementing. Also, not breaking backwards compatibility is a great rule to prevent software from moving too fast. If the software breaks backwards compatibility with every minor release, no one will use it because it is not serious. If it breaks with every major release, no serious project will use it because it would be too expensive to maintain. Therefore, if all I have to do is use some added code in order to solve the problem but preserve backward compatibility, then I am all for it. If you have a small project that you can re-write in a day, you won't care, but then I would not care about these minor issues if that is all I needed it for. I am still following this framework because I believe I can build something serious with it, not just a 5 minute wiki AND I know I won't have to re-write everything once a year. Breaking backwards compatibility is a very serious decision, and I am very happy Massimo takes it VERY seriously. This attitude is what will set this framework apart, and will make it deserve the title of "Enterprise Framework". Otherwise, it is just another framework. If this project has to break backwards compatibility though, I would hope it is done at the same time that it transitions to Python 3, as that would take care of everything all at once. However, there is a LOT of work to be done in assembling a list of issues and solutions before that happens. So just be patient, and continue to use the framework, that is how more issues can be discovered, and solutions proposed. However, for today, there is no reason for even talking about breaking backwards compatibility. On Aug 4, 12:00 pm, Fran <francisb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 7:30 pm, Pynthon <forumx...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yeah maybe a complete web2py 2 rewrite. With nice and better coding... > > I believe this is a bad idea as we really don't want to break existing > apps - this is a *key* strength of web2py & one many of it's adherents > really value. This is what justifies the term 'Enterprise'. > > Many of the 'issues' are easy to solve without doing so & the rest are > pretty much design decisions. > They are seen as key strengths for some & key weaknesses for others. > Let those who see them as strengths enjoy this & if others cannot live > with what they see as weaknesses, let them choose from the many other > frameworks out there. > > F --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
