Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 08:05:17PM +0200, Frederic Faure wrote:

>> 4. As of Aug 2003, is Quixote validated for use under a
>> Windows-based web server? I ask because I read the following in the
>> mailing list:  "We are mainly familiar with Unix, and develop and
>> deploy Quixote under Linux. However, we've had several reports of
>> people using Quixote under Windows, more-or-less successfully.
>> There are still a few Unix-isms in the code, but they are being
>> rooted out in favour of portability."
>
>
> I believe there are people who use Quixote on Windows.

As one of those people, I'd like to add that Quixote runs very well
indeed on Windows. Personally I use the Medusa Web server as a
front-end, and that more than fulfills my requirements.

Though I wouldn't swear to it, I'm pretty sure that there are no more
Unix-isms remaining in the Quixote codebase.

Incidentally, I also use a ZODB back-end in some apps, though not via
Dulcinea; as with Neil's situation, the data in those applications don't
map well onto a relational model.

>> 5. If some of you have good experience with Python-based
>> alternatives (SkunkWeb, CherryPy, Webware + Cheetah, Twisted,
>> Draco, Albatross, Karigell, PyWeb, JonPy), can you tell me why I
>> should favor Quixote over those?

Only a little experience with the others, but I'd recommend Quixote because

- it's lightweight: few assumptions/design constraints;

- brief and easy-to-understand source code;

- portability: supports numerous Web servers;

- templates are written in Python: Quixote lets you use all the power of
that wonderful language without descending into <% %> <$ $>  hell;

- I personally find the URL-mapping-onto-modules approach very logical
and conducive to good application design;

- it has a friendly and well-informed user base.

Best wishes,

-- Graham