Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
> Concerning Webware installation; it will be somewhat better in the next
> release. I think the main problem with Webware from the beginning was
> that is was too much focused on being a "suite" of components with its
> own plug-in architecture. It would have been better to concentrate on
> the core component (WebKit) and add extensions as ordinary Python
> libraries, using the standard Python installation mechanisms. If Webware
> would be installed as an ordinary Python library, there would be no need
> to declare the "/path/to/Webware" everywhere and things would be a lot
> easier. Maybe we can re-package Webware sometime after version 0.9.
Note that installation is highly conventional in Paste WebKit, and not
just WebKit itself but also applications you develop are easy to make
into standalone packages (with a PasteWebKit requirement, of course).
With the new refactoring of Paste, new application development looks like:
paster create --template=webkit MyProject
paster serve docs/devel_config.ini --reload
Then you have a running web server and distutils/setuptools-enabled
project. Later you can package up the application so that it can be
installed in a normal Python way (or with easy_install) and runnable
with a configuration like:
use = egg:MyProject
database = foo
config2 = bar ...
And servable with "paster serve config_file --daemon" (with all the
options to make an rc script easy to write), accessable with SCGI (or
FastCGI or AJP, and other access methods in the future).
Most of what I've been doing with Paste for the past couple months has
been to straighten out the installation and deployment issues, and I
think it's approaching something very usable -- moreso than in any other
framework I've seen (Webware certainly isn't the only framework with
installation and deployment issues).
Ian Bicking / ianb@... / http://blog.ianbicking.org