From: Ian B. <ia...@co...> - 2003-02-20 19:29:44
|
I added Webware to PyPI (http://www.python.org/pypi) Ian |
From: Stuart D. <st...@as...> - 2003-02-21 00:49:22
|
Ian Bicking wrote: >I added Webware to PyPI (http://www.python.org/pypi) > > Ian > > > Cool. Hey, I noticed you categorized it with a status of "Production / Stable" while both Freshmeat, and SF still list it as "Beta" Should be roll this up to a "Production/Stable" releas? Also, in the 0.8 release, most of the component status flags remain set to "beta" and some to "alpha" such as MiddleKit. It feels like much of it is more solid than that. What do y'all think needs to happen to get most of these component status flags upped to "stable"? -Stuart- |
From: Frank B. <fb...@fo...> - 2003-02-21 20:34:32
|
Hallo, Stuart Donaldson hat gesagt: // Stuart Donaldson wrote: > Cool. Hey, I noticed you categorized it with a status of "Production / > Stable" while both Freshmeat, and SF still list it as "Beta" > > Should be roll this up to a "Production/Stable" releas? > > What do y'all think needs to happen to get most of these component > status flags upped to "stable"? Webware in general has proven to be very stable to me. What is missing in Webware, is a general solution to user management. UserKit, at least with file storage, is pre-alpha and not useably at all. SecurePage is not general enough. For example, I didn't find it very easy to adapt this to a SitePage with login box, like every other site has (freshmeat is an example). And I find, user management is hard to get right. This is the single most faulty fault, Webware has, IMHO. A 'production class' application server *needs* user management, and developers don't want to reimplement this every time. ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ |
From: Stuart D. <st...@as...> - 2003-02-24 01:03:55
|
Frank Barknecht wrote: >Webware in general has proven to be very stable to me. What is missing >in Webware, is a general solution to user management. UserKit, at >least with file storage, is pre-alpha and not useably at all. >SecurePage is not general enough. For example, I didn't find it very >easy to adapt this to a SitePage with login box, like every other site >has (freshmeat is an example). And I find, user management is hard to >get right. > >This is the single most faulty fault, Webware has, IMHO. A 'production >class' application server *needs* user management, and developers >don't want to reimplement this every time. > > I don't quite get the issues you refer to about UserKit (partly because I haven't really used it.) What is the problem with thefile storage support? Do we need some better examples of integrating User management? What about integrating UserKit into the admin authentication, and perhaps into the example secure page? Does anyone have some better examples or patched versions that can enhance some of these areas and be incorporated back into Webware? -Stuart- |
From: Frank B. <fb...@fo...> - 2003-02-24 08:08:23
|
Hallo, Stuart Donaldson hat gesagt: // Stuart Donaldson wrote: > I don't quite get the issues you refer to about UserKit (partly because > I haven't really used it.) What is the problem with thefile storage > support? I never tried the MK-storage in UserKit, so I cannot judge it. But in file storage there are simply a lot of not-yet-implemented features, some are essential like saving changed users. TODO-UserKit.text show a long list of items. I wasn't using Webware, when most of the work on UserKit was done or decided, but it seems, the current active developers use another kind of user management in their applications. And as UserKit is 'just there', it seems to hinder further work in this area. ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ |