Kevin Dangoor said:
> I'm right now deciding on a web framework for some development I'm
> doing, and Quixote looks stylistically like how I would like to work. I
> want to use Twisted, though, because of some of Twisted's other
> services. If Quixote's support for Twisted is largely unused, then I may
> opt for Nevow, even though it doesn't fit my brain as well.

I'm using Twisted with Quixote, but haven't piped up on this thread, because
I'm not using SCGI (as I think was implied in the original post).  I'm doing
it the 'normal' way, in which twisted lets Quixote handle all the publishing
work.  Any request that goes to twisted gets handed off to Qx.  Actually, at
this moment, I'm not using twisted in the app I'm thinking of, I'm using
Medusa, but the app is set up to switch from one to the other with a single
configuration switch and I maintain it that way for the day I may want to
add SSL support to the app.  It's a bear to put SSL support into medusa, but
twisted accepts it easily.  On the other hand, medusa performs slightly
better.  Medusa is also much less complicated.  And Twisted has WAY more
stuff that it can support.  That is really not taken advantage of when using
Qx.

Worth pointing out:  If you use twisted / quixote in the normal way, all
those other things twisted offers/supports become non-issues (Nevow and
formless come to mind )... Twisted is 'just' an interface between the web
and Quixote, and doesn't really get a chance to do it's other stuff.  I
suppose it doesn't have to be that way, but I've never tried to figure out
how to change it.

As for hoops...  No hoops to speak of.

Jason