On 01/09/2011 10:20 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 09:24:37PM +0100, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> On 01/09/2011 08:04 PM, seth vidal wrote:
>> On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 10:21 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
I would say yes. TurboGears1.0 and 1.1 are basically CherryPy2 + (SQLObject
or SQLAlchemy) + (Kid or genshi).
TurboGears-1.5 is CherryPy3 + SQLAlchemy + genshi.
TurboGears2 is Pylons + SQLAlchemy + genshi
By building on top of TG we get a little bit of abstraction from the
underlying layers (for instance, we could go with kid on all of those
frameworks even though it's not the default. Same with SQLObject, at least
for the TG-1.x's). We also get some niceties (like setup of some of the
components done for us).
If we built out own framework on top of the same underlying components
I think we'd just end up reinventing a lot of TurboGears code and still
having to deal with upstream version change... just at the level of
upgrading from CherryPy2 to CherryPy3 or kid to genshi instead of at the
level of TurboGears.
-Toshio
There's some attempts (like GearShift[1]) to make a branch (or fork) of
TG-1.x after the move of TG-2.x to Pylons for Controllers
[1]
http://code.google.com/p/python-gearshift/
--
Athmane Madjoudj