A larger concern of mine is, given the enormous amounts of time and money we've spent on developing for Pylons, why would I port over to Pyramid? Why wouldn't I just port over to a more stable web framework, less likely to deprecate the technology on which our entire business is based? It definitely sounds like a neat framework, but I don't see as much value in neat technology when it shows a disturbing tendency to pull the rug out from under me.
Plugging in the old Pylons app using WSGI isn't really any more kludgey than using WSGI for any other app composition use, which is plentiful.
For the second question, the best reason would be that in the world of web development, all web frameworks will deprecate old technology. It's the only way to move forward if a fundamental design decision in the core needs to be re-architected.
I know many former TurboGears users may have a lot of angst about this, because the rug has been pulled out a bit more than for Pylons users, who have rarely had to deal with everything at the bottom being replaced. This direction was taken to help avoid that again in the future, because now all the development for everything... top to bottom... we have under one roof so to speak.
In pyramid we have a core that is architected to deal with the extensibility issue, and can pick up development of features that the Pylons 1.0 code-base couldn't handle. Since its based on over 2 years of development and use in the repoze.bfg community, it means its very solid and stable already.
In short, I think it's on track to be one of the most stable Python web frameworks out there, just like Pylons 1.0 and prior has been quite stable. My advice would be to try new, small experiments and projects with it first. I'll be publishing more articles highlighting the improvements and extra features it brings to the table soon.
The only explanation I see is that developers wanted a nicer codebase. I've been on Pylons mailing list forever, and I can't recall a single practical issue or a feature request, which was decided to be hard/impossible to do due to architecture limitations. It just never comes up.
This is a classic case of redesign for the sake of redesign.
Due to the use of sub-classing, extensive, sometimes confusing, use of Stacked Object Proxy globals, and issues with configuration organization
As an active Pylons user I never, ever heard of these issues in Pylons circles. Translation: nobody asked for these improvements. Statements like "sometimes confusing" aren't doing it. When? Confusing for whom? I, for one, loved stacked globals. "from pylons import config" was great. Rails wasn't that simple. This is a big shock coming from nowhere. It just wasn't something that came up often on Pylons mailing list.
Let me make this clear: do I believe Pylons could be better? Yes I do. Do I think killing it to make it better was a good idea? No, I don't.
Anyway, I have tremendous respect for Ben and can't blame him for getting bored and wanting to work on something different.
EDIT: I just realized that you may be Ben. In that case thanks for building the greatest web framework for my favorite language! The fact that I'm passionate enough to bitch and moan about its death on the Internet should be the best testament to its greatness! :)
> Let me make this clear: do I believe Pylons could be better? Yes I do. Do I think killing it to make it better was a good idea? No, I don't.
So, the whole 'killing' thing seems slightly extreme. I've maintained Pylons with few changes besides bug fixes, security fixes, and deprecating old things for the past several years. And now the announcement that I don't plan on doing any more than the same thing for the pylons package code-base is "killing it off"?
If you're happy with pylons, there's no need to stop using it. The docs will always be available for it, the code-base will not be removed. By design, I just couldn't see how to continue it forward in ways that I (and a lot of people I've talked with) need.
Of course, a lot of people may not need anything more than pylons provides right now, and in that case I'd be hard pressed to tell them to switch their code to use pyramid. pylons is stable, mature, and has been maintained as such for quite awhile, there's a book that still pretty much applies to 1.0.
> Anyway, I have tremendous respect for Ben and can't blame him for getting bored and wanting to work on something different.
Thanks, sorry my nick doesn't reflect it, this is Ben. Seems I can't change my profile info on ycombinator, sigh. Or that 'feature' doesn't exist, anyways...
As I mentioned, the Pylons code-base was essentially frozen for any direction forward which I needed to build higher level tools. I know this may not be immediately obvious to everyone depending on your requirements, and pylons suits many peoples needs perfectly well.
I will be blogging about this in the future, at which point some of the key differences, and what they enable will hopefully become more clear. But Pylons is definitely not dead, and I think it won't be too long before people start to see what a larger development team can do. :)
( I've been watching this thread with keen interest - having chosen Pylons (vs Django, and RoR) about two months ago. )
My views haven't changed since I answered this:
If your app doesn't clearly fit into the sweet-spot's for Django, the argument will be less compelling. The pyramid code-base does have a lot of maturity behind it, it's not completely brand-new, so I don't think it'd be a problem to develop against it to be able to utilize its additional extension points.
Please say Pyramid has a debug mode like Pylons :)
add egg:WebError#evalerror into your pipeline. It isn't in the default Pyramid paster template, but, it was mentioned that it will probably be included in in the default Pyramid paster templates. http://goo.gl/EDqNo is a document I wrote regarding the transition of a Pylons 1.0 to Pyramid 1.0a1 application.
I am a bit surprised though by the way that this was done. As an outsider, it sounds to me like this decision was made among the lead developers of each framework privately, developed in private, and announced as a fait accompli. Was there really no step that involved consulting users of both frameworks to find out what they wanted?
I ask because we (Django developers) spend a lot of time obsessing over backwards compatibility, often to the point where we have to compromises our grand goals for more pragmatic ones. I'd be terrified of making a move like this, so I'm curious to hear if users feel they've been slighted, or if they're pretty much happy to go with the flow.
Second, there was an effort on a code-branch called 'marco', that was to be a common set of code for a bunch of the underlying configuration setup. It's code was also out there, and ppl poked at it some:
It got a little ways, but it kept looking more and more like the existing repoze.bfg... which brought us to a point where pylons-trunk was built on BFG. This entire discussion is on the pylons-dev list here:
Then, in an effort to resolve remaining differences in the code, several of us flew out to meet in person to discuss remaining issues in the code and see if a better collaboration could work out. We decided to try out the idea of a merger, since pylons-trunk for Pylons 2 was doing little more than minor extensions of repoze.bfg anyways, which was collapsed into the pyramid code-base (and is a distinction in that respect from repoze.bfg which doesn't have those bits).
It worked out quite well from some attempts at 'trying it out' and the news of this leaked quite a bit earlier than we anticipated making it hard to try and put together what I think could've been a better process.
Was there a discussion where we asked everyone in both communities for their input on merging? Not really, we talked to primary contributors and developers who had worked on each stack to try and solicit input and ensure they were all in favor of it. But yes, I agree entirely that I should've solicited feedback from the pylons community at large.
For pylons the code-base, there really isn't going to be any difference from what there is right now, and has been. A maintained, stable, mature code-base, that has hit a point where there's little more to be done with it. It's been at a feature-standstill for about 2+ years now. It's not going away, and it will still be maintained.
So I think the way the merger was done definitely could've been announced differently, with more emphasis on what it meant for the pylons code-base (nothing really), vs. the continuing development efforts of myself and other pylons developers.
I'm confused where this notion of leaving pylons comes from, when nothing is changing with it.
This week, Nikon has discontinued the camera, and has announced that there's going to be a new range, even better, coming along soon.
Do I now love my camera as much as I used to?
Rationally, my opinion shouldn't have changed. But I sure wish that I had known that my investment in the previous product was a dead-end.
The Pylons framework was almost entirely just glue between your choices of ORM/templates along with using WebHelpers and Beaker. Those projects are still in use with pyramid, still getting updates (and thus a pylons project will still get feature updates via them).
I tried to explain this better here:
Ughh... The lesson for the future: when it comes to tech, stick with the leader. I didn't go Django route because it felt clunky and bloated compared to more elegant and flexible Pylons, but I guess it was a huge mistake. Pylons decided to "collapse" itself in favor of even more (!) elegance (like someone needed that), and a year worth of work is now based on something "in maintenance mode", while Django is still around.
Tip: looking for a Python web framework? Django. Why? It will be there tomorrow.
Pylons 1.0 has been in maintenance mode already (effectively), 1.0 was in fact nothing more than a few tweaks on 0.9.7, ie. maintenance release with a 1.0 version number and finally killing a few deprecated things.
The FAQ explains why when attempting to extend Pylons for new functionality, I hit a dead-end:
Finding a path forward for extensibility that didn't hit this forking problem:
was a very major concern of mine. I think this will address that, and when Django makes the changes necessary to remove the forking problem I won't be at all surprised if it requires porting your apps...
This also means that no one installing the 'pylons' package will have to worry about someday installing a version that deprecated things their old pylons app needed. Using pyramid means that you can use the new, along with the old one, at the same time, without worrying about version conflicts in the package.
Pylons' change to Pyramid most certainly does not replace that whole stack. It replaces exactly two of those components, the view/controller paradigm and central app configuration. All the things that don't change at all are: templating, ORM, routing, Paste/Pastescript, caching/sessions still on Beaker.
So this nothing at all like moving to an entirely new framework, Mako/SQLAlchemy/Beaker aren't going anywhere.
edit: the routing changes a bit, but its an improved and higher performing package with mostly complete feature parity. I'm looking forward to using it.
(and you know this)
Just because it matured and reached its end-of-enhancements life, doesn't mean it's not useful. It will take a while for Pyramid to mature to this level.
This is the kind of nice thing about using multiple open-source packages that are in heavy use throughout the Python world beyond just web frameworks (unlike web2py).