list at joreybump.com
Wed Jun 8 01:07:31 EDT 2005
michael bayer wrote: > This is interesting....Graham Dumpleton basically said that > environment-agnostic frameworks have to build down to the lowest common > denominator and therefore the developer loses most of the "special" > functionality you get with apache and mod_python, whereas here you're > saying the amount of framework-specific code should be very minimal and > therefore you could probably port your applications to other frameworks > quite easily. Which is strange, both reasons are seemingly in direct > conflict with each other yet both have a lot of truth to them. I don't think they're in conflict. As Graham indicates, frameworks are available at different levels in terms of functionality and the tools offered to developers. Once you've removed the code that supports the purpose of your application, you're left with the interface code. My point is really one of style, that you should keep support code separate from interface code, making it easier to reimplement using other interfaces. Even if WSGI offered true portability, I'd code the same way. Yes, it would be nice write the web interface once and have the opportunity to move it to another environment without modification. But is that what WSGI really offers? It seems that a variety of frameworks will be built upon the WSGI API, so I'll still be faced with reimplementation in whatever framework is available in the target environment, rather than use WSGI directly. It looks like WSGI is a worthy attempt to achieve the usefulness of something like the Python Database API, which has eased the task of working with databases significantly, but doesn't quite allow one to write applications in a completely database-agnostic way. Still, it's a great evolutionary step forward, so it will be interesting to see if WSGI shares a similar success.