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 _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
